 |
| 
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/27/2003 3:58 AM (GMT -6) |   | Here's what I see as some more problems about the OV- I haven't read EVERYTHING on the subject, so please forgive me if this is old ground....thanks!
1. If we are to take those portions of the OT that deal with God possessing human attributes as literal, doesn't "regret" mean, to be sorry for having done something? Doesn't that imply that a mistake was made? In other words, w hen God said that he was sorry that he made man, he's admitting that he messed up. It would have been better that he had not made man. So is God not perfect?
2. It seems that libertarian free will is the most important value in this argument. Why is that? I don't see any argument establishing that we do in deed have free will. What i see is that libertarianism is taken as a given, and so we must then fit our definition of God's omniscience around that. How is compatibilism contradictory with human's ability to love? I don't see it.
3. If one believes in Heaven, we will someday be in a place that is perfect. Do we have libertarian free will in heaven? If we do, then heaven would quickly turn into this world, earth, b/c why would people choose not to act the same way they do here? If we have libertarian free will in heaven, but yet always choose rightly, why couldn't that have been the case on earth?
4. THe OV says that God sees all possibilities. If that is true, how could God ever be surprised by anything anyway? So he knows every possible action that a human may take in any given situation. He is not sure which one will be taken, but certainly, he can make a pretty good guess, seeing that he searches our hearts and knows us better than we know ourselves. So, if an action is taken, even though he wasn't certain that that would be the chosen action, he knew that it COULD have been one of the actions,r ight? So again, how does this reconcile the problem of evil?
5. The OV states the future is partly settled, and partly open. This seems incoherent to me, but regardless, for those parts of the future that are partly settled, how does God accomplish that, other than actively interefering in a situation(s) to bring it about? And if he does that for some events, doesn't that necessarily mean that the partly open events are affected in some way? For example, if God determined that Judas was to betray Jesus at a certain time in history, and Judas, as a child, got extremely ill with some disease that would have killed him, God must have made sure that Judas was recovered from that illness. He must have preserved Judas until that time that he could accomplish God's purpose. He had to have been making sure that Judas did not do something stupid and get killed before that appointed time.
What am I missing here? Thanks!
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher."
- Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/27/2003 9:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Here's what I see as some more problems about the OV- I haven't read EVERYTHING on the subject, so please forgive me if this is old ground....thanks!
Actually, yes, I beleive that most of this has been covered in other places. But for review, here goes some quick responses:
quote:
1. If we are to take those portions of the OT that deal with God possessing human attributes as literal, doesn't "regret" mean, to be sorry for having done something? Doesn't that imply that a mistake was made? In other words, w hen God said that he was sorry that he made man, he's admitting that he messed up. It would have been better that he had not made man. So is God not perfect?
The question is not whether or not God is said to "regret" or "repent." The fact that God claims to do these things is established by Scripture. The question is what is meant by this. As you show, it seems we should take God seriously when God speaks, even if it is a surprise to us what is being said. It is only if one assumes that God is outside of time and that the future is settled that one could ask the questions you raise at this point. We simply don't assume these things. We agree that God said "I regret" and "I am sorry" but we understand this to mean that God intended things to go one way and was disappointed in the actual outcome, which was different. That's all. It is actually quite straightforward.
quote:
2. It seems that libertarian free will is the most important value in this argument. Why is that? I don't see any argument establishing that we do in deed have free will. What i see is that libertarianism is taken as a given, and so we must then fit our definition of God's omniscience around that. How is compatibilism contradictory with human's ability to love? I don't see it.
Libertarianism is indeed assumed. But not for its own sake. There is much that hangs on it:
God created freely, not out of compulsion. This is libertarian freedom.
We sinned freely, not out of complusion. This is libertarian freedom.
God redeemed us when we didn't deserve it. This is libertarian freedom, not compulsive behavior. Grace is free, not required. By definition.
We can resist that redemption freely. We are not forced to be reconciled. What sort of reconciliation is a forced reconciliation?
These are some of the theological structures that seem to me to be dependant on the philosophical concept of libertarian freedom. If someone can say the same thing without employing libertarian freedom in principle, GREAT! But these sorts of affirmations seem necessary for othodox Christian teaching.
quote:
3. If one believes in Heaven, we will someday be in a place that is perfect. Do we have libertarian free will in heaven? If we do, then heaven would quickly turn into this world, earth, b/c why would people choose not to act the same way they do here? If we have libertarian free will in heaven, but yet always choose rightly, why couldn't that have been the case on earth?
Freedom is finite. If you spend $100 on dinner, can you spend that same $100 on new shoes? No. Why? Because freedom is finite. Decisions have both continuity and finality. Heaven will be completely perfect. And yes, this means we will not be able to resist love and loving in heaven. Who would want to?
quote:
4. THe OV says that God sees all possibilities. If that is true, how could God ever be surprised by anything anyway? So he knows every possible action that a human may take in any given situation. He is not sure which one will be taken, but certainly, he can make a pretty good guess, seeing that he searches our hearts and knows us better than we know ourselves. So, if an action is taken, even though he wasn't certain that that would be the chosen action, he knew that it COULD have been one of the actions,r ight? So again, how does this reconcile the problem of evil?
Agreed. God does have that sort of forsight. And yes, God is not able to be COMPLETELY surprised, in principle. The problem of evil results from attributing evil actions directly (intentionally or logically) to God. This does not typically occur in the Open View.
quote:
5. The OV states the future is partly settled, and partly open. This seems incoherent to me, but regardless, for those parts of the future that are partly settled, how does God accomplish that, other than actively interefering in a situation(s) to bring it about? And if he does that for some events, doesn't that necessarily mean that the partly open events are affected in some way? For example, if God determined that Judas was to betray Jesus at a certain time in history, and Judas, as a child, got extremely ill with some disease that would have killed him, God must have made sure that Judas was recovered from that illness. He must have preserved Judas until that time that he could accomplish God's purpose. He had to have been making sure that Judas did not do something stupid and get killed before that appointed time.
Open theists do affirm the basic rhythm of cause and effect. When one event occurs, its having occurred means that some other things will not occur. That event has continuity in the future as settled. When all events are taken into consideration, there will be some events that become inevitable as a result of events that preceded. That would be something that God would be aware of. God would also be aware of all the events that God has decided--at any particular time--must occur in a certain way. This is not a problem if one remembers that God is indeed infinitely intellegent and omnipotent. It is like you are able to decide what you will be doing for lunch next week thurs. You might make an appointment to meet someone at McDonald's for instance. The difference is, you are in an infinitely inferior position in terms of insuring that that comes to pass. But chances are, you can still pull it off. How much moreso could an infinitely wise, infinitely knowing, and all powerful God be able to keep such an appointment?
quote:
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher."
- Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914)
Very cool quote!
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
Edited by - ModesofThought on 01/27/2003 2:33:25 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/27/2003 10:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey- interesting comments!
1. "we understand this to mean that God intended things to go one way and was disappointed in the actual outcome, which was different. That's all. It is actually quite straightforward. "
I guess I meant to say, if we take these words literally, such as regret, sorry, it means exactly as you say- God was disappointed. But I fail to see how a being can really actually be sorry and disappointed when he is omnipotent. If we're saying God has these emotions in the same manner in which people have them. If I regret having spent all my money, and am sorry and disappointed, that implies that I should not have spent the money. That means, I messed up.
2. "If someone can say the same thing without employing libertarian freedom in principle, GREAT! But these sorts of affirmations seem necessary for othodox Christian teaching."
I'm not convinced of libertarianism, but I will save that conversation for another time... Just suffice to say, that Reformed tradition, for example, (orthodox) holds to what they would say a form of compatibilism.
And even if we are granting that God does possess libertarian freedom, I fail to see how that means we as humans must also.
3.Y our reply to my comments about Heaven missed my point, which was, if there will be happiness and eternal bliss in heaven, that must mean we do not have libertarian free will in heaven. You agreed. So tell me why do we have to have libertarian free will on earth in order to genuinely choose to love God? I assume that in heaven we are loving God, even though we have no free will, and that that is the ultimate- much better than here! So God Himself then does not think that libertarian free will is the most important value, or else why would we not have it in heaven?
4,. "That would be something that God would be aware of. God would also be aware of all the events that God has decided--at any particular time--must occur in a certain way. This is not a problem if one remembers that God is indeed infinitely intellegent and omnipotent"
EXACTLY! You're saying it is not a problem in certain situations. So why is it a problem in others? Why can't it be that this applies in all situations?
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher."
- Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/27/2003 10:54 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
1. [Modes said:]"we understand this to mean that God intended things to go one way and was disappointed in the actual outcome, which was different. That's all. It is actually quite straightforward. "
[ReasonableDoubt said:] I guess I meant to say, if we take these words literally, such as regret, sorry, it means exactly as you say- God was disappointed. But I fail to see how a being can really actually be sorry and disappointed when he is omnipotent. If we're saying God has these emotions in the same manner in which people have them. If I regret having spent all my money, and am sorry and disappointed, that implies that I should not have spent the money. That means, I messed up.
Do you really fail to see that an omnipotent being, provided this omnipotence is genuine, could create beings who's actions said being does not control exhaustively? Or is this an expression of your laten commitment to compatibilism?
I would never claim a high degree of comparison between us and God in terms of our emotions and the expressions of those emotions. I am simply saying that we have to interpret the expressions that God gives us of sorrow over decisions and regretting events. What meaning can you offer for these statements clearly made by God in Scripture? Your analogy doesn't fit because I am not likening God to you having spent all your money. Rather, it may be a disappointment that God has, a regret even, that God gave you all that money and then you spent it all. God's disappointment here would be genuine provided that you might (meaning that it was possible that you could) have been more frugal or generous. The difference is that you are restricting omnipotence to BOTH being the source of all power and exercising all power. I am sastisfied with a definition of omnipotence as the ultimate source of all power. God need not retain meticulous control of all things to remain omnipotent. In fact, the ultimate expression of freedom and independence is the ability and willingness to make another free.
quote:
2. [modes] "If someone can say the same thing without employing libertarian freedom in principle, GREAT! But these sorts of affirmations seem necessary for othodox Christian teaching."
[RD]I'm not convinced of libertarianism, but I will save that conversation for another time... Just suffice to say, that Reformed tradition, for example, (orthodox) holds to what they would say a form of compatibilism.
And even if we are granting that God does possess libertarian freedom, I fail to see how that means we as humans must also.
Agreed. The claim that God has libertarian freedom does not imply that humans have it. Not all open theists even claim that God has it! I do, however, and I beleive that the coherence of the doctrines I sketched above depend upon such a concept. (Aseity, the Fall/sin, Redemption/Grace, and conversion/sanctification)
quote:
3. [RD]Y our reply to my comments about Heaven missed my point, which was, if there will be happiness and eternal bliss in heaven, that must mean we do not have libertarian free will in heaven. You agreed. So tell me why do we have to have libertarian free will on earth in order to genuinely choose to love God? I assume that in heaven we are loving God, even though we have no free will, and that that is the ultimate- much better than here! So God Himself then does not think that libertarian free will is the most important value, or else why would we not have it in heaven?
I have not had the opportunity to state this until now, but another premise in Open theism is that love requires libertarian freedom. As I stated above, this freedom is finite, but this does not make it any less essential to the establishment of Love.
quote:
4. [modes] "That would be something that God would be aware of. God would also be aware of all the events that God has decided--at any particular time--must occur in a certain way. This is not a problem if one remembers that God is indeed infinitely intellegent and omnipotent"
EXACTLY! You're saying it is not a problem in certain situations. So why is it a problem in others? Why can't it be that this applies in all situations?
I am required by my framework to "require" only the four acts of libertarian freedom outlined in the first response:
God's free act of creation
Our free rebellion
God's free act of grace
Our free response to grace
Other than these, it could all be compatibilisticly free so far as I know (though I have no reason to concede this). What I described above about the continuity of events and so forth was really the very beginning of a proposal for the metaphysic that I find more plausible, however.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/27/2003 11:15 AM (GMT -6) | | I'd recommend you read (if you haven't already) "Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views" - Bielby & Eddy. It contains essays by Greg Boyd, Wm. Lane Craig, and two others whose names escape me- and then the others' replies to the essays. Obviously, the OV is described, and then simple foreknowledge, Molinism, and Augustinian/Calvinism.
I myself think the Augustinian view is the most logical. The interesting thing is that Boyd's view is unique in that the other three views all hold to a classical view of omniscience. Their replies to those verses about "Regret," "sorry," "surprise," etc., is what I believe is the most sensible.
You said: "Do you really fail to see that an omnipotent being, provided this omnipotence is genuine, could create beings who's actions said being does not control exhaustively? "
If you mean by "control exhaustively" hard determinisim, no. If you mean compatibilism, yes, which is the Augustinian view. However, the other two views (simple foreknowledge and Molinism) hold that God, the omnipotent being, does know the future exhaustively but still gives us free will. The two are not mutually exclusive, according to these two views.
Finally- you say, "love requires libertarian freedom. As I stated above, this freedom is finite, but this does not make it any less essential to the establishment of Love."
In response to my assertion about heaven. How is that an answer to what I said? You're saying, love requires freedom, but that freedom is finite (I assume, limited to earth). SO it runs out and is not longer with us in Heaven. Yet, you then state that it is essential to the establishment of Love. I don't get it. If it's essential to the establishment of Love, how can we love God in heaven, and spend eternity worshiping and praising him, without it? Remember, you granted that we won't have it in heaven.
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher."
- Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/27/2003 11:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Sorry if I am being unclear. I am just rehearsing the relevent theses from Dr. Boyd's "Satan and the Problem of Evil." If you haven't read that one yet, it might help you understand what I am attempting to articulate. Our basic disagreement will obviously be over the nature of free will. Is it libertarian or is it compatibilistic? Are you early or late Augustinian?
My response to your question about heaven and freewill is simply that we will not have libertarian freedom in heaven. And that is not a problem for Open Theists. The reason is that I beleive that love must be resistable. After all, God is resistable, right? If you deny this how would you avoid denying that sin exists? I defend "free will" for the coherence of a strong doctrine of sin, not for the exaltation of humanity.
So then:
God creates us in freedom and grants us freedom
We abuse this and sin
God freely redeems us but in such a way that we are able to resist this gracious work
Some of us do indeed resist (greive the Holy Spirit, reject God's will for their lives, etc.), others submit to the reconciliation
Those who submit to the reconciliation are those who will populate heaven.
That freedom runs out is no more mysterious than money running out. What you spent that money on is the main thing, not that you once had the money.
peace
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/27/2003 12:39 PM (GMT -6) | |
If you're at all familiar with Calvinism, you know that the theology does not hold that God is resistable. And they also firmly believe in sin and evil. Karl Barth said something like, "God did not create evil, he negates it and thus evil takes on a semblance of reality and power.
Evil is what God does not will rather than what he expressly sanctions. Evil is the antithesis of good. Evil has no future, it does not pose ultimate danger because God has already demonstrated his absolute sovereignty over the darkness."
In other words, evil and sin are part of the divine plan- can I explain that? Not to my own satisfaction. God has a purpose for everything- whether we know the purpose now or not.
On an atheist website I saw an interesting post about human free will- an analogy was made ( I won't go into the whole thing) but basically saying, what is so good about free will that God at all costs allows it? Say you're a daycare provider, in a room with a bunch of kids. You have a window open with no screen. You tell 2 of the kids that whatever you do, don't go near that window. You go sit down. Inevitably, they do go near the window, they look out, and fall down. One of them is hanging on by his fingertips. You just sit there, b/c they are exercising their free will. That's more important than you saving them. Even though you easily could save them. What's more, child after child continues to go through the window. You still sit there.
Why do we as humans intervene when someone else is exercising their free will? We do everything possible to stop harm from occurring, if we are decent, even though we are infringing upon someone else's choice.
Of course, this was an argument against God's very existence, and stating that the free will theodicy doesn't help.
I try to postulate that God is ultimately in control, (a compatibilism theory though) and that there is a Divine Plan that we don't comprehend at this point. That, God's sovereignty over evil will one day prevail.
ANyway, I know this is convoluted, sorry, I am in a rush....anyway, I don't mean to sound argumentative- I enjoy debating with people.
Thanks for your comments.
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher."
- Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/27/2003 3:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Very interesting thoughts.
I am familiar with Calvinism and find that I do better withholding assumptions about how closely an individual sticks to Calvin or any of the various points. I mentioned resistability not as a matter to be debated but rather a concept to be reckoned with biblically. Does not the Bible say that the pharisees who refused John's baptism were rejecting God's plan for their lives? And what else could it mean to greive the Holy Spirit than to resist God? How do you encourage people to obey these warnings—as a Calvinist? Are these all anthropomorphisms? What could they mean?
I like Barth just fine, actually. Do you agree with him substantially? Do you prefer the earlier "Infinite Qualitative difference" (Romans, CD, etc.) Barth or the later "Humanity of God" Barth?
Anyway, back to our conversation:
I thank you for acknowledging that you are not completely satisfied with the idea that sin and evil are a part of God's plan. Or more specifically, you said you could not explain how this is possible to your satisfaction. The point here is, is this simply a mystery? Or is this a clear contradiction that needs resolution?
I guess you'd say the former, me, the latter. I cannot say BOTH that sin and evil are a part of God's plan AND that sin and evil are not a part of God's plan. I cannot say that sin and evil are acceptable to God, AND that sin and evil cannot occur to God and cannot be tolerated by God. See, I am here to defend sin as truly against God. This seems unavoidable to me in Scripture. I grant you that I don't fully comprehend sin, but I do see that saying that God is both for and against it is incoherent. I'd rather locate the mystery elsewhere. The idea that God created free creatures, in some way analogous to God's own freedom (Imago Dei) makes much more sense to me and seems thoroughly biblical.
In terms of your strategy in the conversation, it would be good to know what we should discuss and what the paramaters for discussion might be. I suggest that we discuss the relation of sin to God and whether God is for or against it.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/27/2003 3:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Actually, if we talk about sin, we might not resolve some of the other questions you had. Maybe we should revisit those. What in particular do you find inadequate with any specific response I have offered to the objections you raised?
I am just saying we could go many different ways in this conversation, but we do need to focus it for clarity and effeciency.
Thanks.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/27/2003 10:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi friends-
I’d just like to say (while chanting and stomping my feet), “Modes is back! Modes is back! Modes is back! Yay!” It is so good to hear you Bro!
Nice talk you two are having!
I confess to not knowing where best to begin with compatibilists in order to make progress in dialogue. With free will? Notions of divine perfection? Or perhaps with the nature of God-talk—metaphor and anthropomorphism? They’re so interconnected. Push in the balloon here, it compensates there. Not easy.
RD wants to say Augustinianism is more “logical,” but takes refuge in “mystery” when others suggest there is some incoherence present. What is always very interesting to me is that non-determinists are not allowed this retreat. When, for example, open theism is thought to not make sense, things must be explained and fully accounted for. We have to answer every question with rationally sound answers, and the lack of satisfactory answers is explained as evidence against the open view. When in response we press for answers and analogies, we’re told, “It’s a mystery.” This is frustrating.
I find it very difficult to pin down the essential difference between determinists and non-determinists, that fundamental difference which accounts for all the others. Maybe it’s a constellation of points. I don’t know. But I think “what sort of mysteries one is prepared to live with” figures in big time.
Tom 
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/28/2003 4:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey! First off, this stuff is very difficult. I won't pretend to be a theologian, I only went to law school, which, let me tell you, was a bastion of relativism. However I do think my education was important in teaching me how to think critically.
I respect all beliefs that are backed by logic and reflection. Even if I do not believe they are true.
That being said, I agree with Tom that there are problems with the Reformed tradition that are not explainable, as well. All the different beliefs have some problem or another. The question is, which one is the one that seems most convincing.
I do think that history has to be taken into account here. Granted, it is possible for hundreds of people for hundreds of years to be deluded, but is it probable? We can't discount great thinkers of the Christian faith throughout history. These thinkers (theologians) all were confronted with the same problems we are looking at today. Somehow they were able to come to grips with evil and human freedom by looking at the same scriptures we have now, by human reason, etc.
The OV is similar to Socinianism (a heresy) whose beliefs were, among other things: that only the unity, eternity, omnipotence, justice, and wisdom of God were insisted upon, since we could be convinced of these; His immensity, infinity, omniscience and omnipresence were regarded as beyond human comprehension, and therefore unnecessary for salvation. (Please forgive me for this simplification). Anyway, this was considered heretical. (The tolerance level of course, back then, was not asgreat as it is today...)
In other words, this OV Theology is nothing new. What is new is that it now is being considered as legit. I am not saying it is not, I am saying we have to be mindful of the past, and not look at this in a vacuum.
I'm just not convinced that there is enough evidence to justify this new radical view of God- and it is radical. What I've been trying to point out is that human libertarianism presents a problem too- it's not as simple as saying- libertarianism solves the problem of evil. There are just as many problems w/ it as with the Reformed view.
And we also have to keep in mind, it isn't OV versus Reformed. It is OV versus every other acceptable theological christian tradition. You don't have to believe in Calvinism in order to believe in the classical view of omniscience. I myself personally feel that Reformed is the only thing that makes any sense to me- and even so, I am dissatisfied with it.
I brought up the thing about Heaven to say that if we grant that Heaven is the ultimate, the prize, the goal....whatever is the human state in heaven is the "best", so to speak. We will have no libertarian free will in heaven (you've conceded). So obviously, it is NOT the "best" value. The best value is eternally praising and worshiping God. How can we do that without free will, you say? Well, I don't know, b/c how are we going to do it in Heaven without free will? To me, it makes no sense to build an entire theory around libertarianism here on the earth, when that theory is completely blown in heaven.
Libertarianism also doesn't take any "blame" off God for evil, as I've tried to show. God created and started everything- therefore He's responsible. It's as simple as that. Even if he had NO clue what his free creatures would do, at some point, it became apparent, right? You don't have to be God to know that. I can tell you that there will be no person who does not sin. So why didn't god say, hey, this experiment wasn't worth it. The amount of evil that humans are wreaking on the planet is not justified by "choice." Yet, life goes on, evil continues unstopped by God. Saying it is b/c God wants free creatures doesn't cut it.
And, is the Reformed view any better? I don't know. I do know that it, to me, holds a much more Sovereign view of God. That God is in control. That he created the world and us knowing full well what would occur, and his plan unfolds accordingly- when the fullness of time had come, he sent Christ, etc. I might be upset and question, why doesn't God step in here? In the same way that humans are expected to step in when possible to stop suffering and evil? But for me, it is better to think that God is not stepping in because this is part of his Divine Will, and even though I don't understand it, I know it is happeneing for a good reason. That is much more acceptable to me than saying, God is not stepping in here BECAUSE HE DID NOT KNOW THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN!!! So now, not only is he inert, he is also unknowing. He is powerless to stop something b/c he did not know it was going to occur. [and, to say that he does know SOMETIMES, but not others, is unsatisfactory too. If he can know SOMETIMES, why can't he know ALL the time? This seems incoherent.]
Not only is he unknowing, he also is at our mercy. He wants us to choose him so much, that he sits around waiting for us to decide, ok god, I think i'll follow you. Happy now? I don't see how anyone can NOT see that this is not God- this is a pathetic creature. This is not the God that created the universe. I think all Christians, (whatever theological stripe) need to start thinking of God as an awesome powerful being who deserves nothing but worship and praise. He doesn't need us- by definition, God needs nothing. He doesn't need to beg and plead that we will choose him. Why would he?
And the Scriptures have verses that support all different kinds of views of God- we can't pick and choose and say that this verse says God regretted making man, therefore, he must not have known what would have happened. The whole of SCripture must be examined. For every verse that you find supporting the OV, I can find a verse supporting Reformed view. So that gets us nowhere.
OK, have to go...
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher."
- Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914) | | Back to Top | | |
|
InterestedInquirer
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 1/28/2003 5:27 AM (GMT -6) | | (Reasonable Doubt said): "... the Scriptures have verses that support all different kinds of views of God- we can't pick and choose and say that this verse says God regretted making man, therefore, he must not have known what would have happened. The whole of SCripture must be examined. For every verse that you find supporting the OV, I can find a verse supporting Reformed view. So that gets us nowhere."
You are right that we cannot pick and choose w/ regard to scripture. At the same time, we must not throw up our hands and give up when we run into passages of scripture which seem to contradict one another, departing from scripture and relying only upon our reasoning abilities to sort out the problem. God's word is inerrant and is not contradictory, therefore when we run into apparent contradictions, the problem is with our exegesis, not with the text itself. I would argue that by using the whole counsel of scripture this apparent problem disappears.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/28/2003 5:41 AM (GMT -6) | | RD-
I appreciate your comments and questions. I’m glad honest inquiry is behind them. I too think it’s true that all theologies have holes in them. Some have less than others. In the end, each has to go with the view she thinks is the least problematic.
There’s more to say, but let me offer a quick comment about heaven…
RD: I brought up the thing about Heaven to say that if we grant that Heaven is the ultimate, the prize, the goal....whatever is the human state in heaven is the "best", so to speak. We will have no libertarian free will in heaven (you've conceded). So obviously, it is NOT the "best" value. The best value is eternally praising and worshiping God. How can we do that without free will, you say? Well, I don't know, b/c how are we going to do it in Heaven without free will? To me, it makes no sense to build an entire theory around libertarianism here on the earth, when that theory is completely blown in heaven.
Tom: Put a little more continuity between our life and choices here on earth and our life and choices in heaven. If heaven is the result or outcome of values pursued and choices made while here on earth, then it shouldn’t be too difficult to see that the kind of freedom we enjoy here is different than that we will enjoy in heaven. If our freedom and the exercise of our freedom in this life can be viewed as probationary, and heaven as the final reward of how freedom is spent now, then perhaps your question is answered. We have a sort of freedom now that is appropriate for responsibly determining what sort of people we will be throughout eternity. Death appears to be the experience that seals this process. In life, primarily in response to the gospel, we determine ourselves, solidify ourselves, into increasingly compatibilistic ways of behaving. Libertarian free will (the sort of freedom necessary and appropriate for the morally responsible probationary period now) gives way ultimately in heaven to compatibilistic free will (the sort of freedom that results from a lifetime of exercising libertarian free will during the divinely appointed probationary period). I think this is Doc’s view.
So, God is after freely chosen love. Therefore, libertarian free will is necessary. The possibility to reject love must exist. But it doesn’t follow that the possibility must exist forever. It’s entirely possible and appropriate for God to establish this life and that period of time during which finite libertarian free will is spent, and how we spend it increasingly determines the way we spend it, and ultimately how we will have spent it will have irreversibly determined our character. What we will be in heaven we will have chosen our way to. But it’s difficult to argue, as you seem to trying to do, that since the sort of freedom we will have in heaven will represent God’s goal for us, we can safely assume we have that sort of freedom now.
Help at all?
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/28/2003 6:27 AM (GMT -6) | | It's worth remembering that the OV does not present any more of an issue in regard to our safety of eternal occupancy in heaven: what secures a Calvist eternal perpetuance in heaven any more than a non-Calvinist? The OV is simply saying that prior to arriving at the place of eternal perpetuance, there is first libertarian freedom exhibited mostly in demonstration of the opportunity to choose and to love.
As has been used as examples before in these kinds of conversations, God is held no more culpable for the actions of His creation (creatures), regardless of the fact that He is both omnipotent and omniscience, than a parent is of the actions of their children. A parent is very, very aware of the many possibilities that lay (oh, it's probably "lie", isn't it!) before the child. A parent can even witness the very actions they would hope the child, under the given circumstances, would not commit. And even when they know how possible it is for their children to commit such acts, there is still pain, because there is love and relationship; the desire for both, behind it all.
Calvinism eliminates any chance of freedom to love, freedom to resist, freedom to choose (necessary in order to love freely), and no less a compatibilistic eternal security position in heaven than the OV version.
The OV versions sees the God of the Bible very much in accordance with our own image/make-up and actions. He regrets, as we would expect to see Him do, over our sin. He rejoices, as we expect to see Him do, over our obedience and expressed love toward Him. He chooses, as we would expect to see Him do, because we also choose. Thus the simple and first-most clearly expressed concept of God is one which affords both Him and us libertarian free will. This, then, calls for an interpretation of the future to logically coincide with libtertarian free will: the open view. And this too is what seems most clearly presented in Scripture.
Finally, church history, as I've understood it SOLELY from this site's many discussions, was apparently not as opposed to the open view as it has said to have been; it wasn't an issue of discussion. Today, however, it is. Regardless, church history, be it 20 years ago or 200 years ago cannot ultimately (in due respect, however, for what can develop from history) be the final authority, save Scripture. No was "duped" when Augustinian theology grew, as this were merely the working out of theology the same way as has always been done.
For the conversation,
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 01/28/2003 11:33:01 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/28/2003 6:43 AM (GMT -6) | | The Creeds defined the parameters of Christianity- God's attributes are contained in the Creeds. If one did not hold to the creedal view, it was considered heretical.
Of course there were probably lots of groups throughout history who believed this or that in contrast to the creeds - but it is a historical fact that the open view (or different forms of it) was considered heretical.
Probably lots of scholars and theologians throughout history didn't discuss much about the fact that there is only one God and not many gods. It's contained in the creeds. Doesn't mean that they were secretly believing in many gods. Just means it never came up because it was assumed to be settled.
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher."
- Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914) | | Back to Top | | |
|
InterestedInquirer
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 1/28/2003 7:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Is libertarian free will necessary if we are to be held morally accountable for our actions? According to Richard Rice (as I understand), he would say yes. In his view, God can never foreordain or determine a human choice. Dr. Boyd, I believe, differs with him at this point when he says: "Scripture elsewhere teaches that a dreadful time may come when God discerns that it is useless to strive with a particular individual or a group of people any longer. At this point, he withdraws his spirit from these people, hardens their hearts, and thus seals their destinies." (God of the Possible) Judas' action to betray Jesus, therefore, was not free in the libertarian sense. He was unable to keep from betraying Jesus. However, all his previous evil actions were free in the libertarian sense, and since God saw that his heart was wicked, for this reason He could harden Judas' heart and punish him eternally.
My question is this: Was Judas only responsible for his actions previously committed, or was he also responsible for the act of betrayal that was determined by God? In my understanding of the libertarian view, he can only be responsible for those decisions in which he had the power of contrary choice, or the ability to do other than that which he actually did. To affirm that he is truly responsible for this predetermined act only on the basis of his past evils does not seem to be a sensible option, but to argue that he is not held morally accountable for it certainly goes against the clear attestations of Scripture. Indeed, his act of betraying Jesus seems to be the principle thing he is guilty of.
Also, how can one reach the point when they have done so much evil that God decides to harden them and not give them any more chances to repent? Many of the earth's most wicked people have experienced dramatic conversions to Christ, some on their deathbed. How can God know for sure that Judas would have never with his own free will have decided to repent if He had not hardened him?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/28/2003 7:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Which creeds say that the future is entirely settled?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/28/2003 7:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi, Interested Inquirer...your question about Judas is good.
Boyd says: ""Scripture elsewhere teaches that a dreadful time may come when God discerns that it is useless to strive with a particular individual or a group of people any longer. At this point, he withdraws his spirit from these people, hardens their hearts, and thus seals their destinies."
This seems like having your cake and eating it too. On the one hand, there is libertarianism. What you state is logical. If libertarianism is entirely true, up until the point of death, humans have choices. There is no point at which God can say, it is useless to strive anymore. How could he say that, if libertarianism is true? Clearly, by saying that he is stating that God determines, at some points, to take away human freedom b/c it is pointless. How could he know it was pointless unless he knew the outcome? I am lost.
We COULD say that the only portion of the prophecy we are concerned with is that SOMEONE betray Christ. It didn't have to be Judas. But if all were exercising their free choices, it was certainly possible that no one would have chosen to betray Christ. But, that wasn't an option, acording to the prophecy. So God has to ensure that his prophecy came about- someone had to take the rap, so to speak. Now, maybe he chose Judas b/c Judas was a morally reprehensible person anyway. But, as you say, it is hardly fair to then say that his ultimate sin, the betrayal, was freely chosen. Going back to basics, the betrayal in and of itself was a sin. But it also was necessary in order for God's plan to be fulfilled. This is paradoxical. but can you see what I mean by God using evil and sin for a greater good? He used Judas' betrayal to have an outcome of Christ's death and resurrection. Judas is absolutely integral to God's plan. Fair or not-
So back to libertarianism. According to the OV, it is absolutely essential to have libertarianism in order to be able to love. And it is absolutely essential that God have our love. It is more important, that humans have this ability, than, apprently, anything else. Neveer mind that This ability may result in only a few people ever really choosing Christ. (the path is narrow, etc.) Never mind that this ability brings on untold abuse of free will such that certain people undermine others' free will to the point of eradication. - Hitler's free will pretty much eliminated 6 million Jews and others' free will.
By granting libertarianism, we are really saying that we are just as powerful as God is. For we determine God. God creates us, allows us to use and abuse our free will to everyone's detriment, in the hopes that some of us will actually choose him. He is powerless to act otherwise. Now it is not by God's unmerited grace that we are saved. Rather, it is by our human free will deciding we will accept God. God then is bound by our decision.
I remember as a kid feeling sorry for Judas. B/c even at that young age, I thought, how is Judas responsible for this? He can't be. even a 7 year old can see that. God used Judas in just exactly the way that God intended- to fulfill the plan. But yet God holds Judas responsible, regardless of the fact that he had no free will in the matter.
I don't know- I am more confused the more I analyze these things.
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher."
- Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/30/2003 4:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tom!!!
Thanks for the warm welcome back!
Hey, don't you dare bail out on us on the next AAR deal. Serious. I am holding your Walkman hostage until that time. 
Back to RD:
quote:
Hi, Interested Inquirer...your question about Judas is good.
Boyd says: ""Scripture elsewhere teaches that a dreadful time may come when God discerns that it is useless to strive with a particular individual or a group of people any longer. At this point, he withdraws his spirit from these people, hardens their hearts, and thus seals their destinies."
This seems like having your cake and eating it too. On the one hand, there is libertarianism. What you state is logical. If libertarianism is entirely true, up until the point of death, humans have choices. There is no point at which God can say, it is useless to strive anymore. How could he say that, if libertarianism is true? Clearly, by saying that he is stating that God determines, at some points, to take away human freedom b/c it is pointless. How could he know it was pointless unless he knew the outcome? I am lost.
Actually, it would only seem that way if you overlook the fact that freedom is very finite and limited. It is not an infinite capacity for a finite duration. It is a finite capacity for an even more finite duration.
quote:
We COULD say that the only portion of the prophecy we are concerned with is that SOMEONE betray Christ. It didn't have to be Judas. But if all were exercising their free choices, it was certainly possible that no one would have chosen to betray Christ. But, that wasn't an option, acording to the prophecy. So God has to ensure that his prophecy came about- someone had to take the rap, so to speak. Now, maybe he chose Judas b/c Judas was a morally reprehensible person anyway. But, as you say, it is hardly fair to then say that his ultimate sin, the betrayal, was freely chosen. Going back to basics, the betrayal in and of itself was a sin. But it also was necessary in order for God's plan to be fulfilled. This is paradoxical. but can you see what I mean by God using evil and sin for a greater good? He used Judas' betrayal to have an outcome of Christ's death and resurrection. Judas is absolutely integral to God's plan. Fair or not-
You are very optimistic for a Calvinist! I think it to be far more likely that any of a large number would have betrayed Christ. Perhaps God had to give a supernatural blessing of faith and faithfulness to the other 11 so that they all didn’t betray him then and there. Don’t over estimate the goodness of people nor the profoundity of freedom. I think you overestimate the importance of Judas to God’s plan, but that is not a big deal to me. That God came to earth to reconcile us to the world is in no way undone or confirmed by Judas. Let’s keep perspective here. The only thing at stake in the Judas event is a certain way of reading prophecy.
quote:
So back to libertarianism. According to the OV, it is absolutely essential to have libertarianism in order to be able to love. And it is absolutely essential that God have our love. It is more important, that humans have this ability, than, apprently, anything else. Neveer mind that This ability may result in only a few people ever really choosing Christ. (the path is narrow, etc.) Never mind that this ability brings on untold abuse of free will such that certain people undermine others' free will to the point of eradication. - Hitler's free will pretty much eliminated 6 million Jews and others' free will.
Actually, I would disagree with this. It is essential to love that it entails libertarianism. It is not essential that God have our love. God took a risk, and was willing to sacrifice greatly to have our love, but this by no means insures that God will indeed have it. But that is not a metaphysical problem if we affirm aseity. It is a huge relational problem, however. But such is the nature and risk of loving someone other than yourself. It is not more important that humans have libertarian freedom than anything else. It is merely implied that they have it if indeed they are to participate in love. No more, no less. Yes, there is much loss and risk involved, but who are we to tell God that it is not worth it? Doesn’t that sound like a familiar response?
quote:
By granting libertarianism, we are really saying that we are just as powerful as God is. For we determine God. God creates us, allows us to use and abuse our free will to everyone's detriment, in the hopes that some of us will actually choose him. He is powerless to act otherwise. Now it is not by God's unmerited grace that we are saved. Rather, it is by our human free will deciding we will accept God. God then is bound by our decision.
Please don’t here this as disrespect, but I truly hear this as absurd. The boundaries around our freedom are set by God and the reality that God created. God has no boundaries set other than what are inherent to being God. How on earth can that comparison be concieved as one of equality? Would you say that since we exist and God exists that we are both equal? Is not contingent existence infinitely inferior to necessary existence? Please don’t think that an open theist would agree with you when you say God "is powerless to act". We would not. As for grace, God always speaks and acts first. The very MOST we can do is resist. This is my way of saying it precisely because of the type of criticism you are offering. You are right, most free will theists speak as though freedom where much more than it is, but I am afraid you seem to want to exercise it all together, but there is a very serious cost to doing so. You are correct in the last statement. God is indeed bound to "honor" our decision to resist God. This is what hell and judgment are.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/30/2003 4:21 AM (GMT -6) | | | JET- I am not saying that the creeds "define" the settledness of the future. They define the attributes of God. They define one of the attributes as omniscience. Even BOyd and his cronies would agree that the creeds assume that God "knows" the future- it is called the "classical" view. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/30/2003 5:13 AM (GMT -6) | | As you know, the OV affirms that God is omniscient; i.e., that God knows all there is to know and God perfectfly knows the future as it really is (which includes genuine possibilities). I'm not sure if Boyd, Sanders, et al., would agree that the creeds assume or even speak to the nature of the future. In fact, my question was prompted by an argument I once heard John Sanders make to the effect that it seems absurd for some to call the OV a heresy when the creeds (which establish orthodoxy) do not state that the future is settled. I know you have not said the OV is heresy, but it seemed you were suggesting that the OV is inconsistent with the creeds. My point is that, to the extent the creeds merely affirm God's omniscience without defining the nature of the future, then the creeds themselves are not inconsistent with the OV. The point is not that important, but I hope that clarifies.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/30/2003 5:37 AM (GMT -6) | | RD: Even Boyd and his cronies...
Tom: Cronies? 
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/30/2003 5:53 AM (GMT -6) | | | According to Webster's on line, "crony" means "pal." No disrespect was intended. | | Back to Top | | |
|
InterestedInquirer
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 2/1/2003 10:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Admittedly, Open Theism presupposes libertarian free will. Its advocates argue that it is necessary for a coherent doctrine of responsibility. Without libertarian free will, our actions could not be said to be blameworthy or praiseworthy. I am the first to admit that it is impossible to come to the text of scripture without presuppositions. However, if we are to be faithful to the biblical text, we must seek to identify the presuppositions we hold and then attempt to determine whether scripture confirms those presuppositions or rejects them (It is also possible that in some cases it may do neither).
I agree that at face value, without libertarian free will it may be difficult for us to see how God could hold us accountable for our actions, but just because we are unable to discover another reason that we might find satisfying does not mean that the only possible way for God to hold us accountable for our actions is by giving us libertarian free will. As a matter of fact, once one examines the concept of libertarian free will more closely, I believe they will discover that libertarianism is incoherent. For sake of time, I do not wish to treat this matter any further here, but I would refer any interested readers to Jonathan Edwards’ work, “The Freedom of the Will” (Soli Deo Gloria).
I strongly believe that libertarianism is an assumption brought to the text of scripture that is denied by Scripture itself. To affirm the authority of the Bible and hold on to this assumption at the same time puts a person in a very precarious position. Like trying to stuff a square peg into a round hole, no matter how hard you try, it just doesn’t quite fit. So it is with libertarianism and Scripture. The following should apply to both Arminianism and Open Theism.
On Choosing Christ:
With regard to choosing Christ, (no doubt the most important of all our choices) the Bible makes it clear that we cannot choose Him without first being chosen by God. Not that we don’t choose Christ--clearly we do. When Jesus says to his disciples, “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” this doesn’t mean that they didn’t choose to follow him or that they were forced to against their wills. It means that His choice preceded their choice. That is, their choice was dependant upon His choice, and once He had chosen them, their choice would inevitably follow. This is perfectly consistent with scripture at other points. See, for example Prov. 21:1, which says: “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.” God is in control even of our will (We must keep in mind that we use the word “will” as a technical term, and the word “heart” in this verse clearly conveys a similar meaning to that which we ascribe to the term “will”). As a passing note, despite the fact that Arminians may claim that this verse deals only with Jesus choosing who he wants as his disciples, the fact remains that He is in control of the end result--that they will be his disciples because He has chosen it to be so. Is it only “every once in a while” that God permits himself to “interfere” and overrule libertarian free will in this manner, so that we reluctantly admit to determinism in those instances where the text doesn’t permit anything else…but other than those places all our decisions are free?! I freely admit to you that on a purely speculative, philosophical basis it might be possible for God to determine some events thus making null and void libertarian choice with regard to some particular instances while refusing to interfere that way with regard to other instances, but is this the view of God that the Bible presents us with? No. We find exactly the opposite. In John 6 what does Jesus say? “No man can come unto me except it be given unto him of the Father” (John 6:65). If Jesus had intended this to mean that, God, by means of prevenient grace, has given it unto everyone that they should come to Christ, then what can be made of his previous statement only a few verses before in John 6:37, which says: “All that the Father giveth me shall come unto me.” Does every person come unto Christ Jesus? Certainly not. Does this contradict John 3:16 and other passages which suggest that “all who are willing may come”? Of course not, because it is God himself who makes a person willing. Who is it that He makes willing? His elect! Look at John 10:26 where Jesus is dealing with the Pharisees. He says, “You do not believe because you are not of my sheep.” Jesus could not be any more explicit. The reason why the Pharisees do not believe is because they are not part of the elect! The Arminian version of this passage would read, “You are not of my sheep because you do not believe.” But Jesus says exactly the opposite. Jesus says in John 10:16 “my sheep will (future tense) listen to my voice”, and that “I must go and bring them in also.” They are already his sheep before they hear the message of the Gospel!! He just needs to go and gather them.
It is guaranteed that they will believe because they are his sheep, and it is also guaranteed that those who are not of his sheep (like the Pharisees) will not believe. Like I said before, this is perfectly consistent with the phrase “all who are willing may come.” None of those whom the Father doesn’t give to Jesus could ever want to come to him, which leads me to my next point.
Regeneration:
In John ch.3 Jesus is dealing with a certain Pharisee named Nicodemus, and Jesus tells him that one must be “born again” in order to see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus says, “How can a man be born when he is old?”
Jesus responds: “Flesh gives birth to flesh and Spirit gives birth to spirit.”
To make use of the analogy, when a person is born, they are completely passive in the act. They have no control over whether or not they are going to be born or not, no matter how much they might resist (at least I am not aware of a situation in which this has not been the case).
In spiritual birth, it is the same way. We do not have control over our new birth (being “born again”), no matter how many evangelicals tell you otherwise. Jesus continues: “The wind blows where it pleases, you hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” To quote John Murray on this passage, he says:
“ ‘The wind blows where it wills’-this enforces the sovereignty of the Spirit’s action. The wind is not at our beck and call. Neither is the regenerative operation of the Spirit. ‘You cannot tell from where it come or where it goes’-the Spirit’s work is mysterious. It is the Holy Spirit who effects this change…since he effects it by this mode he is the sole author and active agent.”
We must not confuse regeneration with conversion. Conversion is when we repent and believe. It may be difficult not to confuse the two because they occur simultaneously. Regeneration is logically prior to conversion, but not necessarily temporally prior. It is for this reason that Jesus says: “everyone who believes in (me) shall not perish but have eternal life.” He is not saying that everyone can believe in him. He is saying that everyone who does believe in him will have eternal life. Believing is the evidence of regeneration.
In order to disprove libertarianism, it is not necessary to prove perseverance (although perseverance is certainly biblical-Rom.8:28-39). All that is necessary is to show that it is the Spirit who sovereignly decides who will be regenerated (“born again”), not us. The fact that “it blows where it wills,” combined with evidence from the previous section, should be sufficient to show that the Spirit does not regenerate everyone, although many more scriptural passages could be given. Not to mention the obvious hardness of heart and hatred that so many people display throughout their entire lives towards the gospel. But this is what is to be expected from the natural man in his state of depravity. Because of the fall, we can do nothing that is pleasing to God before we are regenerated. To paraphrase Romans 3:11 “There is no one who seeks God. All have turned away. There is no one who does good, not even one.” Before God replaces our “heart of stone with a heart of flesh” (Ezek. 36:26-27) we can do nothing that is good and pleasing to him, and that includes having faith in Christ.
1 Cor. 2:14 “The natural man does not accept the things of God, for they are foolishness to him, he cannot understand them for they are spiritually discerned.” How can we accept the Gospel, which is something to be discerned spiritually, when we are still in our natural state in which we think the Gospel is foolishness? Is anyone out there willing to deny that the Gospel is something to be discerned spiritually? I would hope not, but even if so, they certainly must not deny that the Gospel is one of “the things of God.” The libertarian must affirm either that the natural man has enough spiritual discernment to accept the Gospel and accept at least one of “the things of God”, which flatly contradicts this verse, or he must deny that there are any natural men left on the planet. Is Paul speaking about non-existent, hypothetical “natural men” here? Is he talking about:
a)what men would have not been able to do if it weren’t for prevenient grace
or,
b)a principle that still exists and is in effect for the natural man?
How is it possible to affirm anything but “b”? If you look at the whole context of 1 Cor. Ch. 2 it is clear that Paul is talking about two different kinds of people presently existing in the world.
Let’s look at another passage. “The mind set on the flesh (i.e.-the mind of an unbeliever-check the context to verify) is at enmity with God, for it does not subject itself to the law of God for it is not even able to do so” Rom. 8:7. Repentance involves the very thing that Rom. 8:7 tells us that the mind set on the flesh is not even able to do (notice how Paul throws out the notion of free will right here). In order to repent, we must subject ourselves to God’s law and evaluate ourselves in light of it. We must acknowledge that we are under obligation to the law and that we are deserving of death for having broken it. God must implant the principle of new life in the soul before we can respond positively to Him.
There is much more that could be said. If I have time I will address the issue of particular atonement. I will end with a few passages emphasizing God’s complete sovereignty in salvation and in His creation. Ultimately, this issue (and any theological issue) is one to be decided from the whole counsel of Scripture.
Eph. 1:5 “Having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto Himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.” (Not, “according to the decision He foresaw we would make”!)
Eph. 1:11 “…having been foreordained according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His will.” (There is nothing that happens apart from his secret, decretive will [though many things can and do happen contra his preceptive will, otherwise known as the law.]).
Acts 13:48 “And as many as were ordained unto eternal life believed.”
Ps. 139:16 “Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance; and in thy book they were all written, even the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there were none of them.” (Was it only the psalmist whose days God foreordained, or is he representative of all humans? The foreknowledge presented by the psalmist sounds quite “complete” to me. If God ordains his days, is he unable to make any choices, either by folly or willful intent, to end his life sooner?)
Is. 46:9-11 “I am God and there is none else…declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand and I will do all my pleasure…yeah I have spoken; I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed, I will also do it.”
Job. 42:2 “I know that Thou canst do all things, and that no purpose of thine can be restrained.”
Ps. 135:6 “Whatsoever Jehovah pleased, that he hath done. In heaven, in earth, in the seas, and in all the deeps.”
Ps. 47:7
Dan 2:1
Ps. 37:23
I could go on and on and on. The passages available to choose from are endless.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/1/2003 10:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes: Hi Tom!!! Thanks for the warm welcome back! Hey, don't you dare bail out on us on the next AAR deal. Serious. I am holding your Walkman hostage until that time.
Tom: I forgot all about that Walkman! Did I have a CD in it too? Guess I have another reason to show up in Atlanta this Fall!
Tom
PS Feel free to use the CD if you want!
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
| 43 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:32 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 |
|
|