 |
| 
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 5/13/2002 6:35 PM (GMT -6) |   | R.J.quote:
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.
Are you saying that proponents of the OV attempt to reason "God's time experience", or that they see attempts "to reason God's time experience as futile?"
Personally, I like the latter position -- How do I know how God experiences time? I know he engages us, so at least to some extent he can "stoop to our level". But that doesn't tell me what God really experiences.
Honestly, I think the time thing is a minor point. Doc NEVER preaches this from the pulpit, and much of his writing has nothing to do with the time aspect of the OV. He can discuss it, if asked, but that is not the primary point.
Libertarian free will is another thing. It has more practically day by day implications, and IMHO, better fits the whole of scripture. However, one can have LCFW and not embrace the the OV.
BTW, for Doc, even free will is not the primary point. What I hear most from Doc is Christ and Him crucified. And, he preaches Love -- God's passionate love for us and ours for Him.
Here's a "secret." I have not fully embraced the OV just for this point -- I am not God. I cannot say definitively that the OV's understanding of how God views the future is true. I also think there are ways of reconciling the issues with foreknowledge, some of which I have aluded to here on CVM.
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 5/13/2002 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | |
Pow:quote:
R.J., I agree. (The forest often gets reduced to simply a bunch of trees.)
I call that the "George of the Jungle Syndrome" 
Tom:quote:
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.
Poor James, he is going to become a wall-flower at this rate. 
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 5/13/2002 6:58 PM (GMT -6) | | I know the topic of this thread is pretty standard fare for evangelical polemics, but as I got caught up on it this evening, it struck me as positively bizarre.
Hilston believes he trusts God more than I, or TGB, or any non-determinist. He believes this because he is confident his interpretation of various debatable passages is correct (so confident they aren't debatable in his mind -- which is why he can trust them 'absolutely'). TGB and I and others argue that we disagree with the grounds for his trust (his interpretation), but we nevertheless trust God absolutely, as much as he does, but on other grounds. (Even if Hilston's interpretations were correct, which they may be for all I know, it wouldn't add or detract from my trust whatsoever).
Hilston then argues we can’t trust God absolutely on our grounds, and that we are in fact assailing the true ground for trusting God (his own interpretation of various passages, which he equates with these passages itself).
This is nuts. Positively nuts!
Its like two husbands arguing about who trusts their wife more -- which is bizarre in the first place -- and then trying to resolve it on the basis of how they interpret the wedding vows their wives took!
Look, I would never question someone's trust in your wife till they grounded their trust in an appeal to their particular interpretation of their wives wedding vows. Now I have to wonder, because it looks to me like they're trusting the wedding vows, NOT HER. Seems to me you only have to leverage particular interpretations of wedding vows when THE RELATIONSHIP has vanished and you’ve ended up in divorce court.
Either way, why would we argue about this in the first place? Are any of us feeling insecure in our relationship with God? No one here has professed any worry about losing their faith in the future, have they? And if anyone is, I don’t think THIS is the discussion we’d be having. Is anyone feeling MORE secure because of this discussion? We should either talk about apologetics, or developing a more vibrant prayer life, or something.
Hilston, if you trust God more than me, I’m happy for you! Praise God.
I just hope its God your actually trusting, and not your particular interpretation of the wedding vows he made. Savour THE RELATIONSHIP dude.
And finally, I have to confess that it just seems plain weird -- okay, actually comical -- for you to tell me, or anyone, that we don’t trust God as much as you, that we can’t trust God as much as you, and that we’re assailing the Word of God because we don’t trust God on the grounds you do (your interpretations). Regardless of what we say, you just keep insisting on this.
You don't even know me.
Just plain weird.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6
Edited by - GregBoyd on 05/14/2002 12:00:45 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
allryledup
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 27
| Posted 5/14/2002 8:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Winghead wrote:quote:
Honestly, I think the time thing is a minor point. Doc NEVER preaches this from the pulpit, and much of his writing has nothing to do with the time aspect of the OV. He can discuss it, if asked, but that is not the primary point.
But haven't I read that Doc would concede there's a problem with the OV if it can be proven God's time experience extends past the present moment? As much as it may not be dominant in Doc's writings, it is a pivotal issue, and I know it's nothing we will ever answer in this life. So by default the "proof" of time and God will never be an issue since he has determined how God "fits" into his concept of time or sequence, or however you wish to put it. Maybe I'm reading these things wrong, but that seems to be a logical determination.
quote:
BTW, for Doc, even free will is not the primary point. What I hear most from Doc is Christ and Him crucified. And, he preaches Love -- God's passionate love for us and ours for Him.
I think that's all great, the cross, God's love for us, ours for Him. But if that's all we consider, we're missing the point of how amazing that love is if we trumpet those qualities and forget His building wrath to be revealed as Scripture says it will be in Revelation. Or since God can change His mind should we not be concerned about that? Or is that one of those things settled apart from all the other things we free-willed creatures can change? It gets confusing.
Here's my "secret" I would say in my early Christian years I held an OV position, albeit unwittingly. As I began to explore the direction of my life, I started to have a big problem with that thought process as I looked into Scripture. Anyway, I appreciate your pursuit of this subject. I find your writing clear and well conceived. I pray that God brings you to a point of contentment as His Word reveals its truth to you.
Blessings,
R.J.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 5/14/2002 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Greetings R.J.
R.J.:
quote:
But haven't I read that Doc would concede there's a problem with the OV if it can be proven God's time experience extends past the present moment? ...I think that's all great, the cross, God's love for us, ours for Him. But if that's all we consider, we're missing the point of how amazing that love is if we trumpet those qualities and forget His building wrath to be revealed as Scripture says it will be in Revelation. Or since God can change His mind should we not be concerned about that? Or is that one of those things settled apart from all the other things we free-willed creatures can change? It gets confusing.
Your questions push things to the extreme. You assume Doc is more devoted to his theology, than truth, give the truth of the time issue could be proven. You rightly acknowledge the goodness of the cross, and God's love, but you imply Doc knows nothing else, as if he never takes off the "rose colored glasses". Or, are you forgetting that the cross is there partially because of the wrath of which you speak. You talk as if the OV makes God out to be inconsistent in his character, for to change as you suggest above, he would have to change is character. The OV does not teach that God's character changes. Indeed, where the scripture talks about God changing his mind, it is not with respect to his character, but rather it is in response to mankind's turning (or lack thereof) to Him. But I think you know this, so I wonder why you are "all ryled up"?
It is easy to make statements that no right thinking Christian should argee with, and then say, "Who could except this?! In so doing, you do not learn or prove anything about the OV, or those who hold to it.
What ryled you?
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 | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 5/14/2002 8:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tom,
This is in reply to your 05/10 post.
James wrote: What does it mean for God to love you?
Tom writes:quote:
The Cross.
The fact that He died for you? Let's say that a buddy throws himself on a grenade to shield you from the blast and to save your life. What difference(s) would there be between that act of love and God's, especially in particular terms, such as the benefits afforded by that act of love?
James wrote: And precisely what are you trusting Him for?
Tom writes:quote:
To continue pursuing me with the same sort of love which put him on the Cross.
Toward what end? Growth and progress in your faith and love? Salvation? Will He keep pursuing you even if you do apostasize? If so, that is, if God is the constant, then you yourself are the variable, right? So, if God pursues all men equally, and since you yourself are the only variable in the function, it logically follows that you yourself are actually trusting yourself to keep yourself and to keep your salvation.
James wrote: The Bible instructs us to have a detailed knowledge (epignosis) of God's word. This includes having a knowledge of the basis for our trust in Him, about which the scriptures do not equivocate. We are to trust Him; no one denies this. What I want to know is what you trust Him for. For example, I do NOT, in this dispensation, trust God to keep me from physical harm or illness. I'm looking for that kind of specificity.
Tom writes:quote:
I know you want specifics, James, as in “I trust for the following things, a), b), c), and d). I really don’t think that way bro.
That's a shame, really. You seem to have the mind for it, but for some reason you don't want to do it. I hope it's not the case, but it appears to be a calculated head-in-the-sand approach. This is the sort of thing that makes the Open View unbiblical in my estimation: the lack of specifics. Details are precisely what we are urged to have and to hold in our understanding and in our teaching of others, as we equip them to stand for truth, to defend the faith, to love and serve others with a proper motivation and goal based on the specifics of the God-breathed text. Never in the scriptures do you find the suggestion, "Don't get bogged down in the specifics. Just feel it." Even a cursory read of the scriptures demonstrates the importance of details.
Tom writes:quote:
Maybe that’s why I’m an open theist and you’re a Calvinist. I totally agree that the Word of God provides a basis for our trust in God.
But aren't you saying that, to you, the Word of God doesn't give specifics. Notice the parallel. You do not have nor want the specific bases on which to base your trust in God, and that's the very kind of "trust" (quasi-trust) you end up having in God. Another desires to know the specifics, seeks to understand the specific and absolute bases for his/her trust in God, and thus has an absolute trust in God. You may be satisfied with such murky nebulosity, but the intended audience of the scriptures was given details and a framework by which they cohere. They were given specifics on which to base a full assurance and unwavering trust.
Tom writes:quote:
I see a God who took the initiative to create, to reveal himself, to respond redemptively in history to heal our world, a God who pursues faithless Israel and who ultimately let us hang him on a cross, and I say to myself, "I can trust somebody like THAT in and through whatever life brings me."
But like the analogy of the father and son and the car accident, a God who does not control all mitigating factors cannot truthfully give full assurance concerning your end. He can only say, "I'll do everything I can to keep you, but the bottom line is you must keep yourself."
Tom writes:quote:
I don't need this kind of God to assure me that he can see into a crystal ball all that will happen in the future.
Who believes that? How can God see what doesn't yet exist?
Tom writes:quote:
Who needs a crystal ball to provide a basis for her sense of assurance when you have the Cross?
Where do you get the idea that my "sense of assurance" is based upon God's prior investigation of a future that doesn't yet exist?
James wrote: Past performance does not guarantee future outcomes.
Tom writes:quote:
Then you seem to be trusting in something other than God's proven character.
I do believe past performance is indicative concerning future outcomes because He has decreed in advance all past, present and future events. I'm trying to understand how an Open Theist can justify making the inductive leap.
Tom writes:quote:
Besides, trust is not about guaranteed future outcomes as much as it is about believing God will act a certain way in whatever happens.
What good does it do you if He does all He can to keep you, yet He is powerless to actually DO IT because of your rebellion? You must hope, in the modern sense of the word, that you won't fall. The one who believes in meticulous providence and decree has full assurance that he/she will not rebel because he/she is kept by someone greater than he/she.
James wrote: Open theists claim that some prophecies have failed. What assurance is there regarding the future if we live in a universe where God's prophecies might fail?
Tom writes:quote:
Open theists claim that some prophesies were conditional and so were did not come to pass. If your sense of assurance requires every prophecy God makes to come to pass then this is a problem for you.
How so? Consider how unfair this is to the prophet through whom God's failed prophecy comes. The scriptures say if any man prophesies anything that fails to come to pass he is to be executed. Deu 18:20-22:quote:
20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
So poor guy through whom the failed prophecy was spoken gets stoned to death and his family suffers the shame and reproach that follows. Will you say that it's OK for God's prophecies to fail, given this standard penned by Moses? Why should God be held to a lesser standard than man when it comes to prophecy?
James wrote: There is no such thing as temporary assurance. The Bible speaks of full assurance. Those who apostasize never had full assurance. Full assurance and confidence is not available or granted to the reprobate/apostate.
Tom writes:quote:
There certainly IS such a thing as people believing temporarily that they possess full assurance. You may claim that those who apostatize never possessed the real thing, but you cannot claim that those who apostatize never believed they possessed the real thing (just as you believe).
That's false, Tom. What you're suggesting is that God would give assurance and faith to someone who is a reprobate. That flies in the faith of scripture that says those who turn away from the were never truly in the faith: 1Jo 2:19:quote:
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
Tom writes:quote:
That’s the point. How do you know you are not as mistaken as they are?
They weren't mistaken. They were liars. They were rebels. They were God-hating poseurs. It's not that they lost their faith, or even forfeited it; rather, they eventually manifested what was true all along.
Tom writes:quote:
I’m not asking you to prove anything to me. I was asking you to share with me how you prove it to yourself. All you’ve said so far is, “I know, I know. The Bible tells me so.”
All true believers know the full assurance of their salvation by the gift of faith that is given them through no effort of their own. One recognizes an unwavering belief that they cannot otherwise account for. This is the case with Abraham as it is described in Ro. 4. His faith told him (logizomai) that he was righteous in the eyes of God. There's really no other way to know if one is saved or not. Do you agree? How do you prove to yourself that you are saved?
Tom writes:quote:
The world’s full of apostates who said the same thing with the same conviction and sense of assurance.
The fact that you assert this concerns me greatly. They did not have the same conviction and sense of assurance. Their claiming it to be so doesn't make it so. That confidence and assurance comes from God. He would not give these to reprobates. Faith is a gift of God. Apostates are reprobates manifested, who were never given that gift.
James wrote: If she truly has the security provided by the witness of the Spirit, she is saved. There is nothing that can or will change that. Those who later manifest that their profession was false and that they are truly apostates did not ever have the security and witness of the Spirit.
Tom writes:quote:
But they b-e-l-i-e-v-e-d as confidently as you do that they did.
They couldn't have. Belief is a gift of God. He doesn't give this gift to apostates/reprobates. Those to whom He gives the gift are kept securely and cannot turn their back on the gift.
James wrote: I'm not sure where this idea, expressed by several OpenTheists, comes from. Apostates are self-deluded and live in fear as rebels. There is no assurance ever.
Tom writes:quote:
Exactly my point. If apostates are "self-deluded" then they're going to believe themselves saved and in possession of every confidence you claim to possess. They don't know they're fakes.
Yes, they do. Willful self-delusion is condemned in scripture. It is no excuse.
Tom writes:quote:
So, how do you know you're not a fake, James? I'll answer for you since you wont': Answer: You don't know.
If you're truly serious about assigning this lack of certainty to me, do you have this same uncertainty? Whence comes your assurance that you are not a self-deluded fake?
Tom writes:quote:
It is obviously not true that all apostates spent their so-called “believing years” living in fear as rebels and did not profess to experiencing great assurance and settled conviction.
Regardless of what they professed, they were liars and willfully suppressed what they knew to be true. They were never settled in their belief because they were continually trying to mould God into a palatable image, living in fear of the true God, whom they hated. This is why I am concerned for some open theists who seem to be saved, yet they are continually trying to remake God into something more human and more tolerable than the God who is able to cast both body and soul into hell.
Tom writes:quote:
You may call this all false assurance if you want to, but you cannot deny that THEY believed it to be genuine…again, just as you believe yours to be genuine.
Sorry, Tom. You and I are not mind readers, so I can only go on what the scriptures say. It says that those who reject God are without excuse and were willful rebels. It says that God gives irrevocable assurance to true believers and that false believers are knowingly deceiving themselves and those around them.
James wrote: Anyone who is truly saved does not have this concern.
Tom writes:quote:
I have this concern. It doesn’t occupy me, and it’s not a fear. But I do take the warning passages as holding out to me the possibility of apostasy.
Wow. At first, I was shocked to read this. But now I realize that it is the logical outcome of your theology. There is no assurance. Only a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation. You say that you don't have fear. I don't see how you can avoid it. You say it doesn't occupy you. It sounds to me like you're in denial. I really hope it's not true. I hope you are truly saved and that you have absolute assurance, even though you seem to deny the basis for it at present. I pray you will realize the true nature of God as meticulously providential and exhaustively controlling His creation, having decreed all without exception, assuring His children of the certitude of His salvation apart from our own efforts. Here is true and unflappable assurance.
James wrote: Apostates do not trust in Christ.
Tom writes:quote:
Again, they sincerely believe to themselves to be trusting in Christ. At the time, they professed to every assurance you now profess to and with the same conviction you claim to possess.
I continue to answer these statements because it cannot be overstated: Apostates are nothing but good actors, self-willed rebels, deceivers, evil people concerned only with themselves. Their professions are lies; their expressed assurance, a sham; their convictions, merely parroted trite cliches.
James wrote: But since you mention it here, about what precisely are you trusting Christ?
Tom writes:quote:
I trust Christ in everything to fulfill every promise he makes; ...
But the fulfillment of the promise to you depends on your efforts to keep yourself. Since Christ is constant in the function, and you are the only variable, then it follows that it is you who must secure the promise for yourself. He will do His part and keep the promise, but He cannot keep you against your will so as to apply the benefits of the promise.
Tom writes:quote:
... to save the repentant, to forgive my sins, to respond to my heart’s cry, to lead and guide my steps as I seek his will, to form Christ in me as I pursue him, to come again for me. How long do you want the list to go? ...
For each and every one of those things, on your worldview, Christ is doing everything He can to benefit as many people as possible, right? So He is doing all that can be done; the rest is up to you. What is the point of trusting Christ if He is powerless to ensure that you will ever truly receive these promises and benefits?
James wrote: Do you believe a true believer might not become solidified in his/her faith and end up in apostasy?
Tom writes:quote:
Yes.
And you're not frightened?
James wrote: How does He keep you from apostasizing of your own free will?
Tom writes:quote:
I don’t think “keeping” us amounts to absolute guarantees that we will never apostatize.
Consider the following. Each verse uses the word "plerophoreo" <4135, the verb> or "plerophoria" <4136, the noun>. According to the lexical entries, the word means "to bear or bring full, to make full; 1a) to cause a thing to be shown to the full; 1a1) to fulfil the ministry in every part; 1b) to carry through to the end, accomplish; 1b1) things that have been accomplished; 1c) to fill one with any thought, conviction, or inclination; 1c1) to make one certain, to persuade, convince one; 1c2) to be persuaded, persuaded, fully convinced or assured; 1c3) to render inclined or bent on."
- Lu 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed <4135> among us,
- Ro 4:21 And being fully persuaded <4135> that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
- Ro 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let <4135> every man be fully persuaded <4135> in his own mind.
- Col 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance <4136> of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
- 1Th 1:5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance <4136>; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.
- 2Ti 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof <4135> of thy ministry.
- 2Ti 4:17 Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known <4135>, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.
- Heb 6:11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance <4136> of hope unto the end:
- Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance <4136> of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
James: Whose faith keeps you? Yours or Christ's?
Tom writes:quote:
Nobody’s faith “alone” keeps them. Peter says, “kept by the power of God through faith.” The faith is ours. The power is his.
No. It is Christ's faith that keeps us.
- Ro 3:3* For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
- Ro 3:22* Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
- Ga 2:16* Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
- Ga 2:20* I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
- Ga 3:22* But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
- Eph 3:12* In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
- Php 3:9* And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
- Col 2:12* Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
James wrote: So if you stop trusting, God stops keeping, right?
Tom writes:quote:
Life’s full of moments where we are less than completely trusting of God. The ebb and flow of life’s experiences finds us full of faith and doubt. No problem. Apostasy on the other hand would seem to me to be a conscious, studied, and determined repudiation of faith in Christ. I don’t find Scripture anywhere promising eternal life to those who make such a determination.
I agree. And on your view, any number of circumstances or events might incline someone toward apostasy, right? In other words, on your view, God does not promise you that you will not apostasize, does He?
Tom previously wrote:quote:
... To recognize that my trust is not something God unconditionally predetermines and irresistibly executes is not to say I keep myself. My “trusting” doesn’t take God out of the picture. Neither does his “keeping” take me out of the picture. So, James asks what may we trust God for with respect to the future. We may trust God to keep those who trust him. Those who trust are kept. Those who do not trust are not kept.
James wrote: That's not assurance, Tom.
Tom writes:quote:
I suppose I could just say it’s assurance to ME and that I’m under no obligation to prove anything to you, but that wouldn’t help dialogue too much would it?
That's why we need to stick to the scriptures. We know that what the Bible says is true. If the Bible says we are to have full assurance, and it gives us sufficient grounds on which to have it. On your view, vague and nebulous is satisfactory, and a quasi-assurance doesn't bother you. Now I know you hardly at all (except that you recognize the benefits of the occasional robusto puro), but it's starting to not look too good for you, Tom.
James wrote: You ultimately must trust yourself to stay saved. There is no confidence in that.
Tom writes:quote:
No, I ultimately trust God to stay saved. I’m the one who’s trusting. God’s the one who’s saving. God, not myself or the act of trusting in itself, is the object of my trust.
On your view, here's the equation as I understand it: A + B = C, let A = God's saving work, let B = The faith of the believer. C = Eternal life. Without A, a person cannot be saved. Without B, a person cannot be saved. But since A is a constant, the equation depends upon the only variable, which is B. You must depend upon yourself to be saved. There is no confidence in the flesh.
James wrote: And it doesn't matter whether you believe me or not. I have the full assurance of the scripture and the witness of the Spirit that I have eternal life. I will not fall away because it is not possible. I don't have to convince you because it's not my place to prove it. The scriptures are the final authority, and those words testify to my righteous standing before God.
Tom writes:quote:
I know apostates who said the same thing with the same conviction.
You're not a mind-reader, Tom. You don't know how convinced they are, or whether they are good liars. If they are apostates, then they never had the conviction, because that comes from God and God would not give it to an apostate.
Tom writes:quote:
In any case, I’m very happy for you, James! I’m quite happy and assured as well. Amazing isn’t it? Calvinists and Arminians can both cry “Abba, Father!”
I can't say that I'm as happy for you because you're missing out on what the scriptures offer: full assurance. You say you're "quite happy and assured," but I wonder how truly happy and assured you would be if you believed in the exhaustively sovereign and meticulously providential God who alone can grant such true happiness and assurance.
James wrote: This principle of "genuineness" that you and all Open Theists seem to apply to love (vs. hate) and good (vs. evil) and now trust (vs. distrust) appears to be a complete fabrication. Do you have any biblical support for this dualist premise that "genuine" love and good and trust require the equi-counter potential to do the opposite?
Tom writes:quote:
This goes back to the analogy I earlier asked you for which you were unable to produce. I simply have no category in which I can understand the choice to love someone as genuine love if the choice could not have been otherwise.
I'm happy to give you an analogy if you would first give me a definition of "love," so that we can contrast the "genuine" from the "non-genuine."
Tom writes:quote:
If it could not have been otherwise, I wouldn’t call it love and I don’t know of anybody who would call it love. Well, maybe I know a few. I think you’d be one of them, right?
Consider this proposition: God, in His word, tells us that we are unable to yield to His law (Ro 8:7). We are incapable of coming to Him unless He drags us (John 6:44). He tells us that we cannot love Him unless He enables us to. So let's suppose He says to us, "I can enable you to love me. Would you like that?" Hypothetically speaking, we accept. "Yes, we would like to love you. Please give us the ability to do so." When we could only hate Him, He gave us the ability to love Him. Is it not "genuine love" because He has made us able to love Him? What if we later find out that the only way we could have said "Yes" to His offer was that He had already given us the ability? Is it then no longer "genuine love"?
Thanks for the dialogue,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org
Edited by - Hilston on 05/15/2002 01:40:00 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/15/2002 1:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom writes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cross.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Hilston) The fact that He died for you? Let's say that a buddy throws himself on a grenade to shield you from the blast and to save your life. What difference(s) would there be between that act of love and God's, especially in particular terms, such as the benefits afforded by that act of love?
Tom's answer was huge, and deep. Hilston seems to have ignored all but the surface.
Oh well. 
I read Hilston as asking a rhetorical question, indicating that he does not affirm Tom's answer. So, when he asks "What difference(s) would there be between" he is saying, that in his own take on Tom, Tom's view is shallow. He is saying that what Tom believes is little, and banal.
Too bad Hilston can't being himself to affirm what Tom is saying. Loudly and clear. And THEN, perhaps, invite (not demand) Tom to elaborate.
(That is the "body language" of Hilston's post.)
Edited by - potonwheel on 05/15/2002 06:20:24 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
pouringagape
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 28
| Posted 5/15/2002 1:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Hilston,
About 14 years ago I didn't LOVE God. I just knew of Him and had a taste of relationship with Him (confession, forgiveness, and help in times of trouble etc)
One day I read "I love Your law, on it I meditate day and night" (paraphrase) in the Psalms. Truly I wondered how anyone could love a law, or LOVE God (since He was the cosmic law giver.) My Christian life was based on DOING and I sure felt I didn't DO enough. I couldn't even LOVE God.
The more I thought about it, the more I wondered if it was even possible for me. Frankly (very frankly) I wasn't even impressed with Jesus' dying on the cross. I thought "gee, I would do that too, if I KNEW I was going to heaven and could save all those people." What's the big deal with that? I just didn't feel the love.
So, one day I prayed "Jesus, I just don't get it. I see the passion others have for you and I want it, but to be honest, I just don't have it. I don't love Your law. I can't even find a little love for You. You seem so distant. I guess I don't know how to love someone who is so elusive...help me to get it"
The answer to that prayer is what I consider the Father enabling me to love. Slowly I began to see His fingerprints everywhere. I saw His face on His creation. Where I used to be apathetic, I now cared. When I saw people in pain-I hurt too. When I saw people rejoicing-I was thrilled. My heart expanded. Little by little I fell in love with Jesus.
As I opened myself up (my verb, my choice) to the desire to love...He showed me love and became love.
To me, this was very genuine because there was no force involved. It was as if He was the perfect gentleman standing at the door-knocking. It was up to me to open the door.
Now, there are times I slip back into apathy. I have to go to God and ask again...show me the love, be the love, don't let me forget to love. (remember in Rev "the thing I have against you is you lost your first love" apparently love CAN be lost) My default setting is to care about the temporal things in life. When I get consumed with those-I lose my love too.
We live in a love-less world. It seems that love can also be stolen. We have to reclaim it often. When we do, God enables us to live in it even in the face of the adversary.
For what it's worth,
pouring
They will know we are Christians by our love, by our love...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 5/15/2002 4:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Pot,
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?
Prov. 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Jas 3:16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
Col 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
It is obvious that you're not personally interested in engaging the conversion. Everyone can see how desperately you're trying to start a fight. The point you make is so inane and full of presumption that it's laughable. Just because I don't affirm another's statement is an indictment against me? LOL. Your instigation is so blatant, it makes me wonder if it's not personal.
Here's a suggestion, Pot. Read the conversation as an academic exchange. I'm here to get information and to try to understand another theological system. I'm not here to have a worship service, so cool your liturgical obscurantist jets, amigo. Just because someone utters a glorious truth doesn't mean we all have to stop and genuflect.
Arrivederci,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org
Edited by - Hilston on 05/15/2002 09:07:38 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
allryledup
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 27
| Posted 5/15/2002 6:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
You rightly acknowledge the goodness of the cross, and God's love, but you imply Doc knows nothing else, as if he never takes off the "rose colored glasses".
I apologize if I inferred that Doc thinks or knows of nothing else. From what I read though, love seems to be the dominant theme, to the extent that other matters become secondary. Love is supremely important, but when it comes to God I see multiple facets of supremacy in His character. That's all. My goodness, I know Doc is steeped in study and knowledge of various biblical content that I could only dream of. Yet, I see a focus on the certain aspects of God's character which cause me to wonder where the weight of thought rests. My perception is that he is very knowledgeable about Scripture, but channels his thoughts into areas which inherently detract from other aspects. I confess, we all do that to some degree. I just wonder if this intense focus on God's openess, and His love lends itself towards lessening the impact of His others traits. That's what I read. You or Doc may say I'm way off, and maybe it's due to my presuppositions, but that's how I see it, and do so many others. The strange fact of all this is both sides see the other as limiting God in some form or fashion. I wonder how you break through your opponent on that matter. I read what Hilston writes, and then those who disagree with him. Each side is quite confident that their view of God is bigger, and obviously correct. That's a tough nut to crack. So, I think the natural view is to see the "rose colored glasses" the others are wearing. I imagine a staunch opponent of my position inherently thinks I'm wearing those dreaded spectacles.
Anyway, I'm not sure what I'm stating here other than I think the O.V. is seeing this through clouded lenses. None of this means there's not sincerity in your or my pursuit of these matters, it just means we think the other is wrong, and somehow there's something causing that flaw in thinking. I guess what I wrote about Doc's focus is one of my reasons for why I think the OV exists, and why it's wrong. Sorry if it's not a highly tuned brilliant study. It's just a simple observation. And I think simple sometimes accomplishes more than "brilliant" exegesis and debate. I'll leave the brilliant part to you, Doc, James and Tom, and others who are much smarter than me (Sorry if I excluded anyone from the brilliant part who is brilliant and would like their name included  )
Winghead: What ryled you?
R.J.: J.C. Ryle.
By the way, I love the following passage. I'm sure I'd want to give you a big hug if we ever met, then scold you for not thinking like me. 
"...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)
A friend and brother in Jesus,
R.J.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
pouringagape
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 28
| Posted 5/15/2002 7:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Ps. The above statement by "pouring" should not have been addressed to Hilston. (sorry)
I was just sharing a thought or two. I don't even know if it was theologically sound.
OH, and by the way--the cross means tons to me now!
Peace,
pouringagape | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/15/2002 12:00 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/15/2002 12:15 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom, I tried.
I know. So did I.
Edited by - TGB on 05/15/2002 5:16:42 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 5/16/2002 9:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Winghead:
quote:
What ryled you?
R.J.:
quote:
J.C. Ryle.
Sorry, I just noticed the name wondered if you were communicating a message. No offense intended.
R.J.:quote:
By the way, I love the following passage. I'm sure I'd want to give you a big hug if we ever met, then scold you for not thinking like me.
"...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)
Hey R.J. I love you, not to worry! I also appreciate your comments.
I also do not mind if people disagree with me, and I know many on this discussion board will say the same thing. For what its worth, Doc does not seem to be bothered by people who disagree with him. He has said his theology is not his "God," so if you disagree with him, he does not feel the need to defend "God's" honor. There are many (most?) in Woodland Hills Church that do not hold to the OV, nor does the church affirm the OV. So, feel free to disagree, you are in good company.
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 | | |
|
allryledup
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 27
| Posted 5/16/2002 12:26 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
For what its worth, Doc does not seem to be bothered by people who disagree with him. He has said his theology is not his "God," so if you disagree with him, he does not feel the need to defend "God's" honor.
God does not need man to defend His honor. Defending the truth is another matter though. I think when someone writes a book explaining their position on how God interacts with His creatures, that's a big statement of how important the subject is to him. What is theology if not a study and determination of who God is? Thus, it forms your perception of who or what you worship. Not that the theology itself is to be worshiped, but it certainly provides the foundation for how you perceive God. I want, and think people should be committed to sound theology. Theology that should reflect what Scripture says. Bad theology can lead to a myriad of problems. Makes it pretty important don't you think?
Blessings,
R.J.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 5/16/2002 2:52 PM (GMT -6) | |
R.J.
quote:
God does not need man to defend His honor. Defending the truth is another matter though.
What I said was theology was not his god, and therefore, when someone disagrees with him, he does not take personal offense. The point has to do with whether or not we take it personal, as some do, when people disagree with them.
R.J.quote:
I think when someone writes a book explaining their position on how God interacts with His creatures, that's a big statement of how important the subject is to him.
I assume you are referring to God of the Possible. At the time that book was written, there was a lot of incorrect information and distortions (intentional or unintentional, I do not know) going around about what Greg believed on this issue. He was not looking to make it an issue. However, some people in the BGC were seeking to have him fired from his teaching position, and removed as a pastor. People were writing Greg's publisher in an attempt to have him censored. People got pretty ugly, and it was creating considerable division and confusion with the conference. Greg wrote the book to clarify exactly what he believed and what he did NOT believe.
quote:
What is theology if not a study and determination of who God is? Thus, it forms your perception of who or what you worship.
Certainly theology is a study of God, and yes, our theology can form our perception of who or what we worship. I hope to explore how the OV might fit into this in the other topic I recently started. (Hopefully, I will get a chance to engage my own topic! It has been a hectic two days, as I have been moving my oldest daughter back home from college.
quote:
I want, and think people should be committed to sound theology. Theology that should reflect what Scripture says. Bad theology can lead to a myriad of problems. Makes it pretty important don't you think?
Agreed! The question is, "Does the OV help move us closer to better theology, that is more in line with scripture?"
(Again, I am taking that question to my new topic.)
You and I may agree in more ways than you think, R.J.
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 | | |
|
allryledup
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 27
| Posted 5/17/2002 7:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Winghead wrote:quote:
The question is, "Does the OV help move us closer to better theology, that is more in line with scripture?"
Hmmm... let me see, I think that, well, I believe.....no. (sorry, I get a little annoying sometimes)
quote:
You and I may agree in more ways than you think, R.J.
Is that good for you, or good for me? 
A friend, and caring brother,
R.J.
Edited by - allryledup on 05/17/2002 12:31:50 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 5/18/2002 8:51 AM (GMT -6) | |
1 Let the godly sing with joy to the LORD,
for it is fitting to praise him.
2 Praise the LORD with melodies on the lyre;
make music for him on the ten-stringed harp.
3 Sing new songs of praise to him;
play skillfully on the harp and sing with joy.
4 For the word of the LORD holds true,
and everything he does is worthy of our trust.
5 He loves whatever is just and good,
and his unfailing love fills the earth.
6 The LORD merely spoke,
and the heavens were created.
He breathed the word,
and all the stars were born.
7 He gave the sea its boundaries
and locked the oceans in vast reservoirs.
8 Let everyone in the world fear the LORD,
and let everyone stand in awe of him.
9 For when he spoke, the world began!
It appeared at his command.
10 The LORD shatters the plans of the nations
and thwarts all their schemes.
11 But the LORD’S plans stand firm forever;
his intentions can never be shaken.
12 What joy for the nation whose God is the LORD,
whose people he has chosen for his own.
13 The LORD looks down from heaven
and sees the whole human race.
14 From his throne he observes
all who live on the earth.
15 He made their hearts,
so he understands everything they do.
16 The best-equipped army cannot save a king,
nor is great strength enough to save a warrior.
17 Don’t count on your warhorse to give you victory—
for all its strength, it cannot save you.
18 But the LORD watches over those who fear him,
those who rely on his unfailing love.
19 He rescues them from death
and keeps them alive in times of famine.
20 We depend on the LORD alone to save us.
Only he can help us, protecting us like a shield.
21 In him our hearts rejoice,
for we are trusting in his holy name.
22 Let your unfailing love surround us, LORD,
for our hope is in you alone.
Psa. 33:1 through Psa. 33:22 (NLT)
Trust the Lord for what he HAS done and what he CAN do, and because of his unfailing love for 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 | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 5/18/2002 9:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Preface to this and future posts: Any questions I ask are of an academic nature. I'm here to learn. I grant that I may sound abrasive at times. As I get answers to questions, my mind takes things to their conclusions, and the way that is expressed might not sound very uplifting or worshipful. That doesn't mean I don't want to know. When I ask someone to define "love" or to explain the benefits of the Cross, it isn't because I don't believe in love, have love, or pursue love. It doesn't mean I don't believe in the Cross or that I reject its benefits. I'm here to get information and to see if these concepts jibe with scripture. I thought it would be obvious and that readers wouldn't jump to conclusions about my position based on my questions alone. Apparently this needs to be said. Thank you for your time and interest. Moving on ....
--------------------
Hi Pouringagape,
This is in reply to your 05/10 post.
You write:quote:
Well, my "point" is that love is the point. I really believe if we just love-we will see.
But this is called question-begging. I realize you may not be prepared to give a precise defintion, but logically, if we are to fulfill the command to love, then we ought to know what it means to love in order to know if we are obeying the command properly. You say, "I really believe if we just love - we will see ..." Does this go for atheists, too? Or how about Muslims?
pouringagape writes:quote:
To answer your other questions I'll try an example: As I write to you right now, I'm thinking "He is precious to God, answer his questions with care" "do love" "be love" and "just love" Anything else is secondary.
Let's say a Muslim or a Mormon says, "I can do that, too, and I don't have to agree with that christian stuff." What would you say? "If we just love, we will see"? Muslims probably think this way toward one another, right? But they're all going to hell in a burkhah basket if they don't repent, right? So is your example specific to Christians only? Why or why not?
pouringagape writes:quote:
Naturally, I could argue points with you about this or that, but I really believe it doesn't matter. What's more profitable is trying to open myself to let Jesus' love flow through me. (for sure I'll fall short of that, but trying to "line up my will with His--for you--is the goal")
You can't separate love from points of doctrine and making biblical arguments. If we truly love one another, then we should not shrink from telling others the truth, arguing points of doctrine, making sure that he/she isn't living according to false knowledge or information, all the while seeking to improve our own understanding of scripture and of the love of God expressed and demonstrated therein. We are to be always ready to give an answer to him who asks for a reason of the hope that is in us. I am asking what it means for an Open Theist to trust and love God. I've asked for a definition of "love." Do you have a concise definition?
pouringagape writes:quote:
Since I don't know you it would be easy for me to sort by our differences. On the other hand, it would be more central, important, produce more fruit, and feel better to both of us if I sort by what we have in common. Jesus Christ (love) is our focal point.
But, you see, this is the problem: In my view, Jesus Christ is holding all things together and is meticulously controlling the entire created order.
Col 1:16,17 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
The very word "kosmos" (world) has orderliness and specificity at its root -- not randomness and amiguity. A "jesus christ" who does not have and exercise this power is not the Jesus Christ I know, fear and love. So I cannot be sure, at this point, whether or not He is a common focal point, and the more I read and learn about the Open View, the more I am dubious that we worship the same Jesus.
pouringagape writes:quote:
For me to look at you with no pre-judgement,(or at least interrupt the thought as early as possible, and lead it away from judgement) not assuming that I know what lies under the surface of your words--that, to me is love.
OK, let's say I grant that is as your definition of love. Should that also define love for me, as well? Should I agree with your characterization and definition of love? Why or why not?
pouringagape writes:quote:
For me to always put your "worth before God" higher than any argument or point either of us may have--that is love. For you to engage me in conversation about something so clearly important to me--that is also love. When we weep with those who weep and rejoice with those who rejoice--that is love. When we hold each other up in prayer--that is love too. Obeying is love. Repenting is love. Being aware is love. Allowing God to be God and just resting in Him is also love. Listening is love. love is patient love is kind love is not envious love is not boastful love is not arrogant love does not insist on its own way love is not irritable love is not resentful love doesn't rejoice in wrongdoing love rejoices in the truth (i love that one) love bears all things love believes all things love hopes love endure
Everything you've written desribes love as an action. Now my understanding is that Open theists distinguish between "genuine love" and love that is predetermined (which, to the Open Theist, is not "genuine"). It seems to me that if I do an action out of love, whether that love was predetermined or not, the action is an expression of love. What would be the actual observable difference between the love action of a man done out of libertarian free will and the love action of a man done out of compatibilist free will?
pourinagape writes:quote:
As far as God's love toward me, I believe it is all the above and as Tom said "continually pursuing" me. Being my source, Being my provider, Being my worth, showing me that His burden is (truly) light!
More actions, right? How would you tell the difference between predestinated love action and libertarianly free love action?
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 5/18/2002 11:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi James,
I would like to jump into your conversation with Pouring.
James:quote:
Let's say a Muslim or a Mormon says, "I can do that, too, and I don't have to agree with that Christian stuff." What would you say? "If we just love, we will see"? Muslims probably think this way toward one another, right? But they're all going to hell in a burkhah basket if they don't repent, right? So is your example specific to Christians only? Why or why not?
Truth is truth, regardless of who expresses it. Jesus said the greatest commandment is to love God with all our heart, mind, and soul. If a Muslim or Mormon agrees with that, the commandment becomes no less valid. How far they can go with "truth" may be another issue. For example, a Mormon may give lip service to the commandment, "Thou shall have no other gods before me," but how far can they take it when their beliefs tend to be polytheistic, and they are expecting to be a god themselves someday. On the other hand, Mormans can put Christians to shame with the way they help people in need.
The power of the truth is to some extent a result of the power the one who IS truth (i.e, Jesus Christ) gives it.
Loving God, from a Biblical perspective is something we do with all our being. 1 Cor 13 is typically acknowledged as a good definition of what love looks like. Our ability to love the way God loves, is a fruit of God in our lives (Gal 5:22, 1 John 4:16). But to insist on a "definition of love" is a bit short sighted, since scripture says that GOD is love.
Regarding your questions, James. Perhaps you should sometimes try stating what you believe, and then see if people agree with you, or not. Then, we can have more of a dialog, than if you just drill us with questions.
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 | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 5/18/2002 8:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Greg,
I've finally caught up to your post.
Doc writes:quote:
Hilston, is there any possibility I'm not as horrible, terrible, self-righteous, and anti-biblical as you suggest with these words?
I don't know you, Greg. I can't speak to anything except your words. Your words angered me. So don't take it as a personal critique. If you didn't mean what you said, then I would hope that my anger would be an incentive to be more careful in the future -- and I look forward to your clarification. If you meant what you said, then I would hope my anger would cause you to question if maybe there isn't a legitimate cause for concern regarding your doctrine of scripture.
Doc writes:quote:
Is there the slightest opening in your mind that you've read some personal animosity into your interpretation of my statements?
If I didn't like you, that would be a possibility. Since I don't know you, it isn't a possibility. I read your words as you typed them. I understood your words according to the normative grammar and syntax used in the English language. Unless you departed from normative grammar and syntax and I missed it, then I assume you mean what you wrote. Your reply here affirms that I understood you correctly, and I grieve over your (seemingly unwitting) assailing of scripture.
Doc writes:quote:
I honestly can't see how else you could come away from my earlier post with the spin you gave them.
You haven't corrected or qualified anything you wrote. So apparently I understood you correctly. You apparently believe that the scriptures can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean. Forget THE interpretation; whatever floats one's hermeneutical boat -- different hermeneutical strokes for different theological folks, right?
Doc writes:quote:
Try to speak to the issues and not judge my character (as Jesus, after all, commanded).
Ps 1:3 Pr 11:30 Jer 17:8 Mt 3:10 7:17-19 12:33 Lu 3:9 6:43,44
Hilston wrote in response to Doc's statement about scripture: 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 writes:quote:
What if you are? See, your assurance can go no deeper than your confidence that your correct in your interpretation of Scripture.
Unbelievable. Do you believe in such a thing as THE interpretation of Scripture? Please answer this question. Do you believe that the Bible is objectively true and that its unequivocal message can be confidently ascertained by the diligent student of scripture?
Hilston had written: What if I'm improperly trusting in my interpretation that is figurative?
Doc writes:quote:
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?
Unbelievable. Do you believe we can know confidently which is the case? Do you believe it is possible to arrive at, and to confidently know, THE correct interpretation of a given scripture?
Hilston had written: 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 writes:quote:
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.
Let me re-ask the question: Whence ought anyone to derive one's understanding of God's character? How does one know whether or not one's understanding is not a distorted and inaccurate caricature based on a false interpretation of scripture?
Hilston had written: 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 writes:quote:
Of course. Whatever the Pslamist believes about the Word is obviously his interpretation of the Word.
This is wrong, Doc. What (not "whatever") the psalmist wrote was THE interpretation of God's Words to him. There was no personal, "here's what God's Words meant to me -- you might get something else out of it" interpretation.
Doc writes:quote:
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.
That's false, Greg. Do you have assurance that Jesus rose from the dead? Where does that come from? Your own private interpretation of scripture? Or THE interpretation of scripture? And if you can understand the intent of the pertinent passages unequivocally, why can't the principle hold for the rest of the bible? Even the so-called "difficult passages"? Do you believe the precise semantic of a given passage can be acquired through a consistent and logical hermeneutic?
Doc writes:quote:
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.
There is no such thing as an uninterpreted fact. The question is: What is the correct interpretation as it was intended by the writer. Do you believe this can be acquired by the Bible student?
Doc writes:quote:
Indeed, at least half, and probably more, of all God fearing Bible believe Jesus loving evangelicals disagree with YOUR interpretation.
This is called an ad populum fallacy. It is an inane point.
Hilston asked: Does Paul say to the Thessalonians,... Wherefore comfort one another with your interpretation of these words" (1Th 4:17,18)?
Doc writes:quote:
Do you know of some uninterpreted words we can encourage one another with?
There is no such thing as "uninterpreted words." Neither is there more than one legitimate and intended interpretation. When Paul says to comfort one another with these words, he had a specific and intended meaning. He is not advocating personal interpretations. He is urging the reader to understand the words as he intended them. To include "your interpretation of these words" suggests a plurality of possible meanings. Is that your position, Greg?
Hilston had written: 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 writes:quote:
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.
It's a head-in-the-sand scenario, Greg. It doesn't work. Those who do "fall away" from loving their wives were not concerned about it either. The illustration falls flat. Except on isolated and very specific points, there is no adequate mundane comparison to the relationship we have with God. First of all, how many relationships do we have with invisible, untouchable beings? How many relationships do we have with a person whose voice we cannot hear audibly speaking to us personally? This is why we are urged to comfort one another with scripture. This is where/how God speaks to us. To interject "your interpretation" here undermines and defeats the perspicuity of scripture.
Doc writes:quote:
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.
Would you define what you mean by "love," and how you "grow it"?
Doc writes:quote:
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.
There's no such thing as a former Christian who ever was truly a believer. Such a person who claims to be so "sure of themselves" is a liar. There is no surety in such a person, only fear hiding behind a facade of false Christianity.
Doc writes:quote:
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.
No, but don't you sometimes enjoy being reassured of your spouses commitment to you? Don't you sometimes have a weak or introspective moment and wonder if you are being everything you can and should be for your spouse? We all have moments of discouragement, even in a wonderful marriage. Why do you dismiss this very human shortcoming?
Hilston had written: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 writes:quote:
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?
That's not the intent of the verse. The point is, we will fail Him, and we will be unfaithful. But He is faithful to complete the good work He has begun in us without fail. This we can be assured of.
Doc writes:quote:
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.
If it didn't apply to me, I wouldn't have it. There is no assurance, confidence or safety granted or available to the rebel.
Doc writes:quote:
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.
You're theologically all over the place, Greg. You're arguing points that are either moot or have nothing to do with my belief system, as well as begging the very question in the process. You and others continue to assume that assurance can be had by the poseur. It can't. Assurance comes from God, and God will not give this gift to a reprobate.
Hilston had written: 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 writes:quote:
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.
Not my arguments, Greg. The arguments of scripture. Scripture directs us to believe certain things, and presents the arguments on which those beliefs are to be grounded. This has nothing to do with "psychological certainty." It is a matter of faith in the objective testimony of God in His Word.
Doc writes:quote:
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.
The arguments of scripture suffice to convince me and to change my false views into true ones. There is no such thing as a "less convincing" argument from scripture.
Hilston had written: 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 writes:quote:
I never claimed that I lived in this state in an unbroken way, Hilston.
So are you saying that you sometimes lack assurance in God? If not, why not? If so, how do you get your assurance back? And precisely what are you being assured of when you get it back?
Doc writes:quote:
But I have experienced this, and I'm growing in it. It is why I know Jesus not just through arguments, but personally, experientially.
How do you know that? How do you know it is Jesus you're personally experiencing? 2Co 11:14 "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."
Doc writes:quote:
And his perfect love "casts out all fear."
How do you know this? Experientially? Or from the scripture? And is it just YOUR interpretation? Or is it THE interpretation?
Doc writes:quote:
It does not occur to me, even when I'm struggling, that God will ever leave me or forsake me.
How do you know this?
Doc writes:quote:
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.
Why do you suppose the Bible repeatedly assures its readers? Why do you suppose the readers of scripture needed the kind of assurance you scoff at?
Doc writes:quote:
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.
First of all, I don't claim to have a "superior" trust. I view trust in the Lord as black and white. Either you trust Him absolutely and completely, or not at all. Second, trust is supposed to be subjective. But in the case of scripture and our trust in God, we have an objective basis for it; one which you and others seem loath to expound. Why is that? Is it because you realize that the equation you have devised leaves you with no confidence or assurance whatever? A + B = C. God's effort + your effort = Eternal salvation. Since God's effort is the constant, and your effort is the determinative variable. upon what does the satisfaction of the function depend (i.e., where does the assurance lie)? In the variable, of course. You must trust yourself to save yourself.
Doc writes:quote:
B) My experience isn't just an experience: its rooted in the character of God revealed in Jesus Christ.
Don't you mean "your interpretation of the character of God revealed in Jesus Christ"? Why now are you leaving that out? You throw it at me when I make such statements, but it's OK for you make them without having to account for your interpretation, right?
Hilston had written:(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 writes:quote:
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?
How do you seek unity with God, Greg? Do you light candles? Do you chant a mantra? Or do you seek His face in the objective arguments presented in His Word?
Doc writes:quote:
THAT, we agree, is the source of the problem. And THAT should therefore be the source of the solution.
What is the source? Some reified "unity"? Or is there an objective basis for that unity?
Doc writes:quote:
Relying instead on our particular arguments ...
Not "our" particular arguments. Rather, God's arguments as presented in His Word.
Doc writes:quote:
- on a subject that has divided honest, God fearing, Bible believing Christians throughout the ages -
How is that relevant, Greg? If the subject divides, and has for so long, it is probably a necessary thing. Sin divides. One of these views is sin. Also, declaring all the disputants "honest, God fearing, Bible-believing Christians" is begging the question in a discussion with a 5-pointer. Further, it is once again an ad populum fallacy.
Doc writes:quote:
... 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."
Too bad the Bible urges us to have something that, on your view, is so unimportant and a non-issue. Full assurance, Greg. What is that? Did you see my post to TGB? How can you deny the unwavering, unshakable, full confidence and assurance the Bible urges us to have?
Note how many of the descriptions of trust and assurance in God in this forum could apply to having a personal Superman. Is that all God is? A great cosmic Superman?
Antio'
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org
Edited by - Hilston on 05/19/2002 09:18:07 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 5/19/2002 1:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc to Hilston: What if you are (misinterpreting scripture)? See, your assurance can go no deeper than your confidence that your correct in your interpretation of Scripture.
Hilston’s response: Unbelievable. Do you believe in such a thing as THE interpretation of Scripture? Please answer this question. Do you believe that the Bible is objectively true and that its unequivocal message can be confidently ascertained by the diligent student of scripture?
Doc: Of course there is THE interpretation of Scripture. The fact that you think its UNBELIEVABLE that I try to get you to question your equation of YOUR interpretation with THE interpretation is what concerns me. What if I responded to your trying to get me to question MY interpretation with Scripture by saying, "Unbelievable. Do you believe in such a thing as THE interpretation of Scripture?" Your assurance goes no deeper than your confidence that you’re correct in your interpretation of Scripture. You’re just so confident that to question your interpretation is to question Scripture itself.
Doc to Hilston What if you are (misinterpreting Scripture) 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’s response: Unbelievable. Do you believe we can know confidently which is the case? Do you believe it is possible to arrive at, and to confidently know, THE correct interpretation of a given scripture?
Doc: Well, I’m confident that the passages that speak about God changing his mind are NOT figurative. You’re confident they are. You’re not an idiot, so I may be wrong. If you think I’m not an idiot, it should cause you to on some level entertain the possibility that you might be wrong, even if you can’t see how. This is all wonderful, and we can learn from each other – until one of us thinks our way into a corner and concludes that our assurance of salvation is identical to our assurance that our interpretation of Scripture is correct. Now, we CAN’T be wrong and we HAVE to insist (at least privately to ourselves) that all who disagree are idiots (spiritually, if not intellectually).
Wish I had time to engage more.
Blessings
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
timlings
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130
| Posted 5/20/2002 12:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi there everybody
Here's my tuppence worth...
Regarding the issue of THE interpretation of scripture, what about the idea that God's truth has to be revealed by his Spirit in our spirit? Scripture has to be interpretted, yes, but ultimately what we are dealing with are 'words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.' (1 Corinthians 2:13)
This kind of shifts the goal posts slightly, and means that we can't just rely on our interpretation, or our ability to argue, or ability to use our minds, but rather rely on God's Spirit when dealing with scripture.
Secondly, about faith being a work.
The way I understand it is that all faith is is trust. We are called to trust in Jesus and his death on the cross, and this is how we get saved. Interestingly enough, Paul writes that God has 'reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight without blemish and free from accusation - if you continue in your faith...' (Colossians 1:22-23) It seems to depend on our faith.
But this doesn't mean I'm trusting in myself for my salvation. I'm trusting in Jesus for that, but I'm not trusting in my ability to trust in him. Jesus is trustworthy and so putting our trust in him is not that difficult, and certainly not something we should be congratulated for.
I think another interesting thing about trust is that it is very powerful and does effect things. If we trust God for things, i.e. have faith in him for them, then he provides. If we don't, then he doesn't. It's like with Job. There was a biggup spiritual battle going on over his life, with Job getting the sharp end of the stick. But it was because Job kept trusting in God that the victory was won. Trusting in God defeats the enemy it seems...
Anyway, I'm sure that's enough to be going on with.
love
TIMLINGS
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 5/20/2002 5:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Welcome aboard Timlings. Glad your giving your two cents. I personally think you're right on. Yes we need to use good, sound, exegetical and hermenuetical principles in interpreting the Word. But there's also the revelatory work of the Spirit that leads us and enlightens us. Now, what worries some about appealing to the Holy Spirit in exegesis is that there aren't any "objective" grounds to settle whose hearing the Spirit rightly.
But why should we think something isn't true or real just because humans can't settle it?
good word on faith and trust as well.
Blessings
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/20/2002 6:46 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Doc:But why should we think something isn't true or real just because humans can't settle it?
Doc, that reminds me of the scripture from this Sunday (in Chicagoland) where Moses, of all people, said that he wished ALL the people would be prophets, just like the two "in the camp" -- who were prophesying -- were. Those close to Moses urged him to make them stop; and that was his response. (What if he had done differently?)
Truth IS, by scripture promise, the protectorate of the Spirit in the Chruch. But boundaries are not the Spirit's "cup of tea." He blows where he will. He reveals others; but is defined to us by none. I trust in the consistancy of revelation and belief in the Church over all time. But I both distrust my own and anybody in ability to know all and to know perfectly. I believe that the witness of the Spirit is amongst the Church. But imperfectly known by us.
The "fixed-ness" we seek alludes us. But since salvation is relational, and a matter of growing in grace, we'd do best to seek God continually. And not hope for what is already known perfectly to turn out to be God.
Were Moses to have forbid the work of the Spirit "in the camp", wouldn't that have been his own personal "calf?"
PoW | | 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 4:47 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 |
|
|