 |
| 
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 3/3/2003 3:16 PM (GMT -6) |   | I've often heard this from classical theists--Open Theism is "scary." This seems an unfounded objection to me. Is the truth of something based on how scary or not it is? As far as "scary" goes, Calvinism has always seemed to me the most scary theology conceivable (to any but the elect, of course).
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 3/4/2003 5:18 AM (GMT -6) | | I think the scary part is the realization that we can/do make a difference. A god that controls EVERYTHING lets us hide from this.
peace and love, don
---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/4/2003 12:58 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm...I'm just too scared to talk about it!
Starkman
(Sometimes the people saying these things--that Open Theism is scary--are more scary than Open Theism...the way they believe, that is!)
Edited by - Starkman on 03/04/2003 5:59:55 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/6/2003 5:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Scary for people who don't truly want to take responsibility for what they can and cannot do...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/7/2003 3:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Even scarier for those who want to take responsibility for what they are capable of doing...
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 3/20/2003 7:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I've often heard this from classical theists--Open Theism is "scary."
It is scarier. Pre-determinism is like riding the jungle ride at
Disneyland. The boat is on a rail and the animals are all
pre-programmed animatronic machines. Real exciting and scary, huh?
Very static, actually. A-ticket
The true picture is like going to the real jungle with a very,
very competent guide, one who is able to handle situations as they
come up. Very dynamic and scary. Definitely E-ticket
"have you considered my servant Job?"
_________________________
1 + 1 = 3 for large values of 1 | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 3/20/2003 2:23 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
It is scarier. Pre-determinism is like riding the jungle ride at Disneyland. The boat is on a rail and the animals are all
pre-programmed animatronic machines. Real exciting and scary, huh?
Very static, actually. A-ticket
To me, classical theism/determinism is scarier because one can not really know if one is one of the elect or is simply deceived "for God's glory."
I certainly agree open theism is logically dynamic and exciting, but that does not necessarily equal "scary," I don't think.
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/21/2003 1:08 AM (GMT -6) | | John said, To me, classical theism/determinism is scarier because one can not really know if one is one of the elect or is simply deceived "for God's glory."
Boy, ain't THAT the truth! Well said.
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 3/21/2003 4:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
To me, classical theism/determinism is scarier because one can not really know if one is one of the elect or is simply deceived "for God's glory."
You're right! I really don't know if I am one of the elect.
Be careful who you witness to, "cast not your pearls before swine".
de doo doo doo de daa daa daa
_________________________
1 + 1 = 3 for large values of 1 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/21/2003 3:33 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"To me, classical theism/determinism is scarier ..."
I just HATE "Scare Crows."
It is just a common assumption, and an "old horse" to presume that "classical theism" (which is far from a monolithic thing) is the same as "determinism." Doubt what I'm saying and I'll refer you to G. K. Chesterton's book "Orthodoxy."
As to "Election", THAT is true of only ONE person: Christ. So if WE hope to be elect, we may do so only in HIM, "put on" HIM (as Paul says in Galatians). Again, it is only a scare crow, and myopia to identify all treatments of election as being necessarily deterministic.
Again, I just "HATE" scarecrows! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 3/21/2003 3:38 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I just HATE "Scare Crows."
"Scare Crow"? I thought it was "strawman" arguments
not "scarecrow" arguments. Probably means the same thing.
_________________________
1 + 1 = 3 for large values of 1 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/21/2003 4:15 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"Scare Crow"? I thought it was "strawman" arguments
not "scarecrow" arguments. Probably means the same thing.
Lets hear it for the "Tin Man."
I guess "Scare Crow" is a Freudian way of saying "Straw Man." It means creating something not just wrong, but "scary" too: a Scary Straw Man.
Thanks for pointing that out. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 3/21/2003 4:45 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"To me, classical theism/determinism is scarier ..."
quote:
I just HATE "Scare Crows."
It is just a common assumption, and an "old horse" to presume that "classical theism" (which is far from a monolithic thing) is the same as "determinism." Doubt what I'm saying and I'll refer you to G. K. Chesterton's book "Orthodoxy."
Hi PoW,
As one who was a staunch Arminian for many years, I know that many people (including myself formerly) think that they don't believe in determinism while they affirm the exhaustive definite foreknowledge of classical theism. (And I have read Chesterton's _Orthodoxy_).
quote:
As to "Election", THAT is true of only ONE person: Christ. So if WE hope to be elect, we may do so only in HIM, "put on" HIM (as Paul says in Galatians).
I certainly agree with that.
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/22/2003 1:54 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
same as "determinism" ... refer to G. K. Chesterton's book "Orthodoxy."
Point being here that the determinism Chesterton was writing about was by those who were not Christians. Evident in this paragraph from "Orthodoxy":
quote:
In passing from this subject I may note that there is a queer fallacy to the effect that materialistic fatalism is in some way favourable to mercy, to the abolition of cruel punishments or punishments of any kind. This is startlingly the reverse of the truth. It is quite tenable that the doctrine of necessity makes no difference at all; that it leaves the flogger flogging and the kind friend exhorting as before. But obviously if it stops either of them it stops the kind exhortation. That the sins are inevitable does not prevent punishment; if it prevents anything it prevents persuasion. Determinism is quite as likely to lead to cruelty as it is certain to lead to cowardice. Determinism is not inconsistent with the cruel treatment of criminals. What it is (perhaps) inconsistent with is the generous treatment of criminals; with any appeal to their better feelings or encouragement in their moral struggle. The determinist does not believe in appealing to the will, but he does believe in changing the environment. He must not say to the sinner, “Go and sin no more,” because the sinner cannot help it. But he can put him in boiling oil; for boiling oil is an environment. Considered as a figure, therefore, the materialist has the fantastic outline of the figure of the madman. Both take up a position at once unanswerable and intolerable.
The accompanying comment, to balance the discussion, it this:
quote:
This bald summary of the thought-destroying forces of our time would not be complete without some reference to pragmatism; for though I have here used and should everywhere defend the pragmatist method as a preliminary guide to truth, there is an extreme application of it which involves the absence of all truth whatever. My meaning can be put shortly thus. I agree with the pragmatists that apparent objective truth is not the whole matter; that there is an authoritative need to believe the things that are necessary to the human mind. But I say that one of those necessities precisely is
a belief in objective truth. The pragmatist tells a man to think what he must think and never mind the Absolute. But precisely one of the things that he must think is the Absolute. This philosophy, indeed, is a kind of verbal paradox. Pragmatism is a matter of human needs; and one of the first of human needs is to be something more than a pragmatist. Extreme pragmatism is just as inhuman as the determinism it so powerfully attacks. The determinist (who, to do him justice, does not pretend to be a human being) makes nonsense of the human sense of actual choice. The pragmatist, who professes to be specially human, makes nonsense of the human sense of actual fact.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 03/22/2003 06:55:10 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/12/2003 4:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Hmmmm...
Some things that I think some people may find scary about the open view and it's full implications:
1) Gratuitous evil exists. Meaningless, purposeless evil. Sucks.
2) It is genuinely possible for what I call "radically gratuitous" evil to occur. This basically means that God may have a predetermined act that God wishes to accomplish, but due to certain creational factors, it does not turn out like God planned. A great example would be the Suzanne story from "God of the Possible". In blunt terms, it is possible for God to get us into something that turns into a mess that God possibly can't get us out of. (Sure, God can make the best of things, but this is not the same as complete reconciliation of the affair.)
3) It is genuinely possible that good AND bad things may not be orchestrated by God. In other words, it may be just as presumptuous to think of evil things being directly from demonic forces as it is to think of good things being directly blessings from God. Both wild, crazy luck AND gratuitous evil exist.
4) There are absolutely NO guarantees with divine providence and the interpretation of such. Period.
5) Expectations for responses to petitionary prayer MUST be seen as tentative on a number of levels. Though God's motivation is not in question, the OUTCOME of God's actions are definitely in question.
6) It's genuinely possible for God to "lose" to Satanic, human, or creational defiance. Though the entire "war" may be won in the end, God can still "lose" even as God does all that God can do. To some, this is not a very nice thought.
I think all of these make a "scary" picture in that it ends up meaning that
--VERY FEW things in this life are certain, especially when dealing with divine providence
--MUCH MORE responsibility is placed on human beings IN THIS LIFE for this life
and...
--MUCH MORE ambiguity exists in areas of discernment, following, and outcomes of God's will than in some other theologies. Lots more grey areas.
*********************************************
To play devil's advocate, Calvinism does have a big payoff. Sure, it may make God responsible for everything, but it would also mean that gratuitous evil does NOT exist...at all. It is the foregone conclusion that EVERYTHING was for a good reason that only GOD can understand. No matter how random and/or evil something may seem to us, the Calvinist can "know" that it DID have a purpose in the plan of God, and that plan was good. God NEVER loses. NOTHING lacks DIVINE meaning, in the ultimate scheme of things. And we leave THAT up to God. For people who have an incessant need for meaning, reasons, and purposes, this would be pretty cool, n'est pas?
In the end, I think the "scarier" view depends on how a person feels about 1) personal responsibility 2)gratuitious evil and 3) a God that can fail in ANY wise.
Just some thoughts.
"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend. | | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/12/2003 10:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph mentioned: "..a mess that God possibly can't get us out of"
I cannot even believe that a Christian as I assume you are can make a statement that God "CAN'T" do something!! Greg Boyd made a similar statement to me in the divorce thread.
What kind of "god" is that? What do we do with verses that proclaim God's sovereignty and power? Chuck them??
MATT. 19:26 "... with God ALL things are possible?"
LUKE 1:37 "For NOTHING is impossible with God." (when Mary was told she would give birth to Jesus)
How does an Open Theist explain those verse?? I'd be interested to hear your explanation of them.
How about this one: "The Lord works out EVERYTHING for his own ends..." (PROV. 16:4)
The statment that God can not do something makes God LIMITED and not soverign!! Why would He not be ABLE to do something? It's absolutely NOT true! Only men, angels, demons, and satan have limitations. We are the creations. The Creator has NO limitations!
You also say: "This basically means that God may have a predetermined act that God wishes to accomplish, but due to certain creational factors, it does not turn out like God planned."
What kind of God is that? What God are you talking about? Not the God I read about in the Bible!! It doesn't turn out as He planned??? HUH??? Can you give me reasons? Did the person have greater power than God and thus, usurp God's plan?? Did Satan have greater power than God and thwart God's plan?? NO ONE ruins God's plans!! No one is more powerful than God, and God is not some pansy push-over that I feel Open Theism makes him out to be with statements such as these. If God wants to do something, He IS going to do it!!
When answering God after God spoke to Him (basically asking him "who are you that you think you understand all of me?"), Job answered "I know that you can do ALL things; NO plan of yours can be thwarted." (JOB 42:1-2). He goes on to say, "Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know" (vs.3).
Read JOB chs. 38-42 and see how God answers men who have him all figured out. In my opinion, Open Theism is trying to figure God out... all His mysteries and unknowns and is thus, diminishing His sovereignty, His power, and is elevating man's power as well.
Who are you and who am I to look at a siuation and then decide... oh, well, it didn't work out the way we wanted so God must've not been able to make it happen or He must have changed His mind. Who gave Open Thesists the power to read God's mind?? How do you even know what His plan is for that situation or whether or not it has even yet come to fruition?
When you say... well, it didn't turn out the way God planned and the reason is due to certain creational factors... well, I ask again... says who?? How have you become privy to such information about God??
Now, if you start changing the verb "can" or "can't" to "will" or "won't", that is completely different. God CAN do ALL things, but He might not. He COULD have prevented Jesus' death but did not. He does NOT change his mind like a man, but He does relent, He does spare punishment, He does not inflict all of His wrath as He could do if He so chose to. And, as well, He ALLOWS suffering and evil.
I do not say these things claiming to know all things but I only say these things as I have read and studied them in the Word of God.
Greg's Suzanne story only tells me that Mr. Boyd does not believe all marriages have the hope of being restored. I already made this point in the divorce thread where I made a statement saying "God CAN restore ALL marriages" to which he replied, "If only it were up to God." I could just hear a "sigh"... as if... oh, if only God were powerful enough... if only humans didn't have more say-so that God.
This God is weak!!! This God is even weaker than human choices, and that is NOT the God I worship! Note that there is a big difference between saying "God WILL restore" and "He CAN restore." God chooses to do as He chooses to do. He is GOD. But as far as His ability... well, I think any Creator of the universe has the ability to do ANYTHING! Nothing is too difficult for Him. However, He created laws and limitations (for humans) and He allows those laws to play out and He allows us to make choices, etc... but this certainly does not mean that He can't intervene and do whatever He wants... but He doesn't always do that and that is HIS choice!
When you say God CAN'T do something, you are making Him out to be a weak God who has limitations. I have yet to see verses that support this claim that God CAN'T do something! He may chose not to, but as for His ability... He CAN do ALL things!!!!
Open Theists seem to think that people are "scared" of Open Theism due to their beliefs about God, but you've got it wrong. People are "scared" because it's being taught and believed by a few. Open Theism is not widely accepted. But it is a teaching that diminishes God's sovereignty and power and "explains" his mysteries. The belief alone- that God cannot do all things- makes Open Theism "scary" to me because I fear for people believing such a thing. As well, Open Theism stresses such things as free will and self-esteem over such things as holiness and obedience.
A "God that can fail" as you (Meph) mentioned is a very scary God indeed because that would not be GOD but that would be a god. God does NOT fail... He NEVER has and He NEVER will. It may look to our human eyes as if He has, but His Word makes it very clear that He does not fail. His plans always prevail.
And then when you say: " Both wild, crazy luck AND gratuitous evil exist", I think .... "LUCK???" Show me ONE single verse in the Bible that mentions "luck".
Here are only a few verses that come to mind that clearly show that God IS in ultimate control of things... not that we don't have freedom, responsiblity, etc... but ultimately, God is GOD, whether we like it or not!!
Prov. 127:1 "Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it...."
Prov. 21:1 "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases."
Job 42:10 "... the Lord MADE him prosperous again..."
Lam. 3:37 "Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?"
Is. 46:10 "... I say: My purpose will stand and I will do all that I please."
Prov. 16:33 "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/12/2003 10:14 AM (GMT -6) | | In your bio, Meph, you said you are "deserving" of love but that is a lie (one I believe Open Thesim teaches). None of us are "deserving" of anything but DEATH! We sin against God... we grumble and complain... are selfish, prideful, and irritable... and so on. We are sinners. It is true we are deeply and increadibly loved by God, beyond what we can even grasp I am sure; however, we certainly do not "deserve" it. It is only because of who God is and the grace He has shown us that we are loved. It is because He simply loves us... but it is not a matter of us "deserving" it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/12/2003 10:39 AM (GMT -6) | | DANIEL 3:16 "Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to the king, "Oh Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is ABLE to save us from it, and he WILL rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he DOES not, we want you to know...."
These three Godly men do not say... "even if he CAN not" but "even if he DOES not." They acknowledged that NOTHING is impossilbe with God at the same time acknowledging that God had the choice and power to either let them die or to save them. But as for whether He had the capability, there is no question.
Part of the king's response after witnessing the three men delivered:
DANIEL 4:35 "He [God] does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: 'What have you done?'"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 4/12/2003 10:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Bob,
You said:
quote:
If God wants to do something, He IS going to do it!!
I have personal knowledge that some marriages have not been restored.
So, for any given marriage that is not restored, either:
1. God can't restore it or
2. God doesn't want to restore it.
I thought I have been hearing you say (on this and/or another thread) that God desires to restore all marriages. (Correct me if I misunderstood you.)
Assuming you believe God wants to restore all marraiges, then do you really believe that "if God wants to do something, He IS going to do it"?
I would say it is more likely that God can't restore all marriages (given creaturely freedom) than that God doesn't want to.
Thanks,
Earl
Edited by - JET on 04/12/2003 3:58:45 PM
Edited by - JET on 04/12/2003 4:02:36 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/12/2003 11:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Earl,
Really? You really believe God can't? I am sad.  No, I mean, I am truly, truly sad. God CAN restore ALL marriages; He CAN heal ALL diseases; He CAN do ALL things. I feel like if you truly believe He cannot... well, that seems so hopeless to me. It seems so bleak and so sad. It seems like He is only a "god" vs. the GOD.
Yes, I do believe God WANTS to restore all marriages but in the sense of this: He HATES divorce and His perfect will is that NO marriage separates. But His perfect will is also that a marriage is not abusive, that no one commits adultery, etc. His perfect will was really that Eve wouldn't eat that darn apple! But... she did. It wasn't a matter of God not knowing she would because I'm sure He knew it'd happen. How? Don't ask me! I cannot explain that mystery of God's omniscience any more than you can. But... the point is, if God hates divorce and if He has said, "What God has joined together, let no man tear asunder", then certainly divorce is NOT His perfect will.
However, sin exists. We make choices and God allows us to... it's not that He doesn't know we are going to, but He allows us to... and we know that nothing will ever be as it ought to truly be until we are in heaven restored to a sinless state. Until then, Satan prowls around seeking to destroy, and God does allow him to, and thus, things are not as God would desire them to be but it is not beyond His ability to change things or to restore things or to heal, deliver, etc.
He allows us to make choices and many choose not to stay married. And also because of sin, some things happen that aren't even a result of a bad choice (like a childhood disease that kills, etc). And I know it's really, really hard to reconcile how God allows suffering, evil, etc. while at the same time being "in control" and knowing these things will happen. But to say that God can't do it or doesn't want to do it makes you a person reading God's mind or saying somethign about God that really isn't true.
If you say God "CAN'T" do something, you are saying that He does not have the ability to do it... that something greater (a person, a demon, a thing) is hindering God from being able to do it. Since all things are created, it would be that the creation is hindering the Creator. I don't believe this is true. Like I have said before, that is a very weak God.
If you say God does not WANT to do it, I also think that misrepresents God. God certainly does not WANT a person to suffer or a marriage to end or a host of other things.
Now if you say God ALLOWS it and for whatever reason, He chooses not to do something... well, this is the God I read of in the Old Test. and also the New Test. He is a very, very powerful God who can do anything, but He also allows us to reap what we sow, to make choices and face consequences, etc.
So while I believe He CAN restore all marriages, I don't believe He WILL. But the reason I believe most are not restored is because one or both people chose to disobey God and do their own thing. Obviously a woman doesn't want to remain with a man whos's beating the tar out of her... but still, that man is disobeying. Were he to repent and obey the Lord (loving his wife, treating her as the Bible says he ought to), well, their marriage could be restored. It's not so much a matter of God's ability to be able to restore it as much as it is the person's choice not to obey God. When we disobey, we remove ourself from Him. HOWEVER, He certainly can get our attention and change us! But we are not puppets with our every move controlled.
I cannot explain how it is that we have both freedom to choose and yet God is also in control, but I would venture to say that it might be something that is a mystery of God and is not explainable.
But, no, I don't believe that if God WANTS to do something, then He IS going to do it. I believe He can do it and might do it or might not. Like Jesus' death. He could have spared His son. He chose not to. There are always reasons though as to why He does or doesn't do something. It could be the person's sin, it could be that there are greater purposes of God's (like Jesus' death... his death gave us life), it could be that we might not even know the purpose. There are many things in life that I don't undertstand or even like (like why a person remains stubborn and unsaved or why an innocent child dies, etc), but I don't believe they are the result of a God who CAN not do something.
Edited by - bob on 04/12/2003 4:48:33 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/12/2003 1:29 PM (GMT -6) | | I believe this is our first interaction...so hello, bob. Nice to meet ya. 
As I'm hearing it, you appear to have a problem with the idea of God not being able to do certain things because of the reality that God's created. And make no mistake, that's basically what I'm saying. That, due to the type of God/Creation interaction that God wanted to exist, God is following the "rules" of that go with that...and this implies some of the things that I've said. As far as the "cannot/will not" thing, the implications of open view theism do make this line less distinct than some would like, but that's the breaks.
But....let me point something out. You said:
quote:
If you say God "CAN'T" do something, you are saying that He does not have the ability to do it... that something greater (a person, a demon, a thing) is hindering God from being able to do it. Since all things are created, it would be that the creation is hindering the Creator. I don't believe this is true. Like I have said before, that is a very weak God.
If you say God does not WANT to do it, I also think that misrepresents God. God certainly does not WANT a person to suffer or a marriage to end or a host of other things.
Now if you say God ALLOWS it and for whatever reason, He chooses not to do something... well, this is the God I read of in the Old Test. and also the New Test. He is a very, very powerful God who can do anything, but He also allows us to reap what we sow, to make choices and face consequences, etc.
So while I believe He CAN restore all marriages, I don't believe He WILL. But the reason I believe most are not restored is because one or both people chose to disobey God and do their own thing. Obviously a woman doesn't want to remain with a man whos's beating the tar out of her... but still, that man is disobeying. Were he to repent and obey the Lord (loving his wife, treating her as the Bible says he ought to), well, their marriage could be restored. It's not so much a matter of God's ability to be able to restore it as much as it is the person's choice not to obey God. When we disobey, we remove ourself from Him. HOWEVER, He certainly can get our attention and change us! But we are not puppets with our every move controlled.
This is what I'm getting:
To say that God cannot do something is wrong, if by that we mean that there is something greater than God that can defeat God. God is absolutely sovereign and has the final say on what goes. To say that God does not want to do something may be misleading, because just because God doesn't want to stop something doesn't necessarily mean that God wants it to happen. This implies that certain things may be allowed by God, though not desired by God. And whenever this happens, it can be assumed to be for very good reasons. This plays out like so: Though God CAN do all things, there are certain things that God ALLOWS to occur for God's all-wise purposes...and we can trust in those purposes. In the case of marriage, it is POSSIBLE for God to fix all marriages by some controlling means. However, God doesn't wish to control all marriages. God wishes to give humans the power of free choice as well as the responsibility for those choices. Because God REALLY WANTS this (us being free, I mean), God ALLOWS people to somewhat determine whether or not marriages with be restored. With this allowance of freedom, there is the chance that, AGAINST GOD'S CORE DESIRES FOR MARITAL RECONCILIATION, marriages may not be reconciled...like when people sin or whatever.
I'd just like you to realize that this is EXACTLY what an open view theist could say. No lie. Let's say for the sake of argument that you dig the stuff I just wrote above. If so then, you should have no problem with the following:
Given the type of Creation that God desired (complete with free-willed beings and relatively free MARITAL relationships), God cannot use his power to reconcile ALL marital relationships on simple whim without DENYING the type of Creation that God truly wants...one full of free relationships. Restated, God cannot have a Creation of genuinely free marriages if God COERCIVELY reconciles all of them because then God would rob Godself of what is TRULY DESIRED. This means that, on the level of working within some INDIVIDUAL MARRIAGES, there are some things that God just CANNOT do...because of the rules that God has set for Creation AND Godself.
Now, let's look at what this means on 2 different levels: 1) the level of God's will for Creation and 2) God's will for marriages to be "not torn asunder". Though God's will is NOT being thwarted at the first level (for there ARE free-willed marital relationships), it may be the case that God may NOT BE ABLE TO save INDIVIDUAL marriages that God endeavors to try to save. Why? For just some of the reasons YOU state (emphases mine):
quote:
It's not so much a matter of God's ability to be able to restore it as much as it is the person's choice not to obey God. When we disobey, we remove ourself from Him.
In other words, God may FAIL to reconcile some marriages, because of the other factors involved...even as God does all that God can do. Fail. Be unable to. Be unsuccessful at. Whatever you want to call it.
So...what do you think? Once again, whussup.
"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.
Edited by - MephEternal on 04/12/2003 6:39:34 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/12/2003 1:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's a question for you, bob. If what I've said in the post above is feasible, isn't it possible that OTHER creational factors that God interacts with besides HUMAN free-will can account for God's inability to do certain things? Like say, demons and THEIR power of influence? Just a thought.
"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/13/2003 10:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Here's a question for you, bob. If what I've said in the post above is feasible, isn't it possible that OTHER creational factors that God interacts with besides HUMAN free-will can account for God's inability to do certain things? Like say, demons and THEIR power of influence? Just a thought.
"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.
MEPH likes to speculate. But this is territory that is not unknown to two-thousand years of the Church, and centuries before that including the book of Job.
Bob, don't take "wooden nickles." Look for the watermark. Ask for references. (Etc.)
2 Peter 1:20
www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=2PET+1:20&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/13/2003 2:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello, this is my first posting. I was a student of Greg Boyd a while back and have just completed my PhD in Economics. During my time studying Economics, I recognized many themes that have parallels with Theology.
I would like to offer here that one could say that Theology, historically, did offer a psychic balm. I.e., one did not have to worry about civilization falling off of the world, since God was in Control or the future was certain. Nowadays, the same is, in large part, true of Economics. We trust the economy will continue to grow, not because God is in control, but because Alan Greenspan is in control(When in fact the extent to which Greenspan can manage the economy is quite limited due to its complexity). But, because people believe he can manage the economy they do not put all of their money under their pillows in fear of another great depression(of course, this may not be true of Greg Boyd).
In the Christian walk, as with economics, avoiding useless angst over what cannot be controlled is important(consider the birds of the field...). Yet, Christianity, as it developed historically, provided this balm by using spatial analogies to describe time. Open Theology has offered alternatives like with a Chess Match. Now, based on the work of the Mathematician John Nash, it can be shown that because the game of Chess is closed(i.e., the board's dimensions and the maneuverability of each piece will not change during the course of play) that there exists an optimal strategy, a Nash Equilibrium that will guarantee one cannot lose. The problem is that Chess is complicated enough that only an omniscient being or Big Blue could know of such a strategy. But if someone were omniscient and was playing against a non-omniscient being the fact that they would win the match an any other match would be forgone.
In a sense, the above analogy provides the psychic balm that other theologies earlier provided, without presuming perfect foreknowledge. Yet, obviously, it is a flawed analogy since what counts is not just the fact the end is secured but the sufferings of us pawns along the way(something that a grand-chess master would not have to concern her(his)self with.
As such, the potential for angst is real. As someone who became an open theist in college and then was beset with angst for the two years following his graduation, I can testify to that. We are, ultimately, left in the same position as Mother Teresa saying, "I believe with all my heart that God will never let anything happen to me that we cannot handle together... I just wish he didn't trust me so much!"
I would also say that the angst/fear also applies at a deeper level to how Christians answer the problem of ecclesiastical order. How do we coordinate our actions and reconcile/accept our differences in beliefs regarding Theology with the goal of discerning/doing God's will for our lives. I would suggest that the work by George Barna may suggest that the answers given by many who claim to be "evangelical" fall far short of the glory of God.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Arrogance that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/19/2003 6:44 AM (GMT -6) | | I am quite surprised I got no comments on my rather controversial contention that what is at stake in these debates is not the rigor of the theology so much, but rather how pragmatically they are used as psychic balms and the perception that openness does undermine that psychic balm.
For me, the fact I know I could stray away from my relationship with God has reemphasized the importance of how I structure my life with religious institutions, including prayer, reading the Bible, going to church(even when I don't understand much of the sermons(in Spanish) and probably wouldn't fit into the theological statement for membership at the church(I go to a Baptist Church here that is independent but quite similar to Southern Baptists(which have taken a Reformed turn in recent years)).
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
| 34 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:35 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 |
|
|