 |
| 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 4/1/2003 5:44 AM (GMT -6) |   | Thanks for telling us about it chance. Just ordered it. 
Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/1/2003 5:59 AM (GMT -6) | | MEPH,
Yo!
quote:
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<yiielded@hotmail.com>
Your ID page has a typo: "y i i e l d e d"
You've got 2 eyes -- make that 2 "i"s.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 4/1/2003 9:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey chance, (or anyone)
Is Hall the guy that John Sanders dialogued with in the Christianity today articles that came out last year? Is the book a dialogue between the two positions? If so, I'm definitely on it!
Ross
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 4/1/2003 9:35 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hey chance, (or anyone)
Is Hall the guy that John Sanders dialogued with in the Christianity today articles that came out last year? Is the book a dialogue between the two positions? If so, I'm definitely on it!
Ross
Yep. That's it. Go to amazon.com and do a search. They have the needed info you are looking for. Ahhh, the heck with it! Here's the link.
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801026040/qid%3D1049229127/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/102-7174945-6260139
Scroll down to check out the editorial reviews book description.
Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 4/1/2003 9:47 AM (GMT -6) | | POW,
I checked out Da Meph Man's profile. So this is on the internet. So the WHOLE world can see. So I'm not saying ANYTHING new here. But take a look at this.
Marital Status: Heh. Heheh. Ha! MuaHAHAHA!!
Dawg...
Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 4/1/2003 10:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon, Thanx!
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/1/2003 12:34 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom! How's the Sunshine state? Will you ever be able to go home with the war on?
Hey Springs! Yeah, Florida is OK. Yesterday the high was 64. That's the lowest for this day on record. And St. Paul was so warm the whole time I was there. Looks like wherever I go things run backwards. Hmmm.
I'm heading back home to Beirut on April 9th. Worked it out.
On the book...
Sanders mentioned that it was basically just a slightly expanded version of the CT exchange between the two of them. If you've read the CT exchange you basically have the book.
But if it turns out to be different, someone tell me.
Hey, Springs, enjoy the sunshine yourself! When are ya leaving?
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 4/1/2003 5:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tom! It's good to hear from ya! Sorry to hear you screwed up the weather down there. I hope you get to enjoy a sunny beach soon. I'm leaving this Saturday at the crack of dawn. I'll be on the beach by the afternoon. woo whoo. Sand in my toes, island sunsets, grilled pescado and local anejo!
God bless my favorite Bastor.
Springs
Thy love did read by rote and could not spell. - Friar Laurence. - Shakespeare | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/1/2003 5:32 PM (GMT -6) | | I just ordered the Sander's book through my book store. Should have it in a couple of days...to those who care, I am still intrenched in the second chapter of the "Bounds,' book but I will be getting back to it shortly.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/2/2003 2:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
God bless my favorite Bastor.
Springs
Yes, yes. And Greg is the breaching bastor over at WHC! And remember, Electra must find her inner *itch to get him in line!
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 4/2/2003 5:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom, I read that last post of yours in an Arabic accent. Very funny. I say instead of having Electra nag Doc about writing a piece for the next Christus Victor newsleter we start a protest on the board.
And now in honor or Honorman's excellent contributions lately, and in consideration therefore of his pet peeves, I will return this thread to it's origins.
I haven't picked up a copy of the book yet. But I will be very interested to read everyone's ideas about it.
quote:
Bob: ...I am assumming most...
Let the discussion begin! 
Springs
Thy love did read by rote and could not spell. - Friar Laurence. - Shakespeare | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 4/3/2003 3:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Let the discussion begin!
Springs
I should have Chapter one up today with a couple of my own thoughts.
Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 4/3/2003 5:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Ok. I received my “Beyond the Bounds” (or should it be entitled “Outta Bounds?”) book in the mail last week. And I, like others here would like to discuss it. So for starters, the first chapter is entitled, “The Rabbis and the Claims of Openness Advocates.”
Basically, the thrust of the chapter is concerning the influence of Greek philosophy on Christian and Jewish thinking about God and is a response to open theism literature that says as much.
The OT argument goes something along these lines, “Greek philosophy had a profound affect on Christian and JEWISH thinking about the nature of God. And Classical theism is the product of the biblical-classical synthesis of Plato’s notion of God’s perfection. The idea is that God, in Platonic thinking would be unchanging in both knowledge and experience (Boyd). This does not render a true portrayal of God and thus, is a distortion. However, it must be remembered, Fuller says:
A. Whether and to what degree classical theism was influenced by philosophical concerns (this goes for both classical theism and openness theology). That is, one must look at whether similarities involved borrowing, dependence and synthesis (from Chapter 2).
B. Modern Rabbis deny that Greek philosophy influenced the Rabbis of old who were supposed to be “disinterested third parties.” As a matter of fact, most of chapter 1 is devoted to quotes about how Rabbis were not Hellenized, Platonized or any other “ized” you can think of.
On page 30, Fuller takes Sanders to task for misunderstanding Owen who is a patristic scholar who has some affinities to openness thinking. Fuller says that Owen is NOT saying that Greek philosophy CORRUPTED scriptural thinking, but that the Fathers and Philo used Greek philosophy for EXPRESSION and AMPLIFICATION for the divine attributes that the scriptures already teach. And then he quotes Owen. Basically, Fuller is saying, “Sure the Fathers used Greek vocabulary and concepts to EXPLAIN scriptural truths is accurate. What is NOT accurate is to say that Greek philosophy distorted or corrupted scriptural truths already existent.”
Seeing as some of the claims of open theism are connected to historical claims, Fuller asks the question, “Have virtually all Jews and virtually all Christians throughout history misread the Old Testament? The idea is that if they hadn’t then they would embrace the open view as well.
On page 35 Fuller specifically asks, “Where did the Fathers and the Rabbis get their views?” The answer is the Old Testament. They simply maintained the traditional view of God revealed in the Old Testament and taught to them by the rabbis and affirmed to them by their Lord. Fuller goes on to ask where the historical evidence is, saying Sander’s cites NO evidence and Boyd only furnishes an estimation. But basically, it is bad scholarship to see similarities between Greek philosophy and Christian theism and then say, “There you go. That proves that the Fathers synthesized biblical and Greek philosophical ideas (corrupted scriptural teaching) into the church.” Fuller says, that Sanders and Boyd “have not proved and cannot prove their assertions. They simply beg the question.” He goes on to say that because Sanders and Boyd make these assertions, this would explain why the Fathers were duped and why no evidence exists to prove when the “infection occurred” only that, “everything happened so early on.”
In part IV Fuller takes to task the “openness hermeneutic.” He takes a quote from “God of the Possible,” where Boyd says that there are passages that are figurative and portray God in human terms and that it would be ridiculous to take them literally because of said reason and because the genre of a passage is poetic. But there is “nothing ridiculous or poetic about the way the Bible repeatedly speaks about God changing his mind, regretting decisions, or thinking and speaking about the future in terms of possibilities.”
In other words, Fuller disagrees with openness understanding of anthropomorphisms. Open theists reject physical depictions of God but they accept anthropopathisms (emotional and mental depictions of God) as literal. Fuller’s contention is that the Rabbis relish both the physical and emotional/mental as anthropomorphisms and in fact teach that God is “incorporeal (having no body), immutable and perfect in all his ways.” The only reasonable way to understand anthropomorphism are:
1. They are necessary because of human limitations.
2. They reflect the Rabbinic doctrine of “ ‘imitation of God’ which portrays God as obeying his own commandments, studying the Torah, praying to himself, etc so that his people can imitate his ways.
Though the Rabbis refer to the similarities between God and man they also stress God’s unlikeness to man. At the end of the chapter Fuller says that Boyd’s comments on Gen 6:6 from God of the Possible “Doesn’t the fact that God regretted the way things turned out (to the point of starting over) suggest that it wasn’t a foregone conclusion at the time God created human beings that they would fall into a state of wickedness?” mirror the argument of a Gentile who denied God’s foreknowledge.
Gentile: Do you not maintain that the Holy One, blessed be he, sees what is going to happen?
Rabbi: Indeed so.
Gentile: But lo it is written, And it grieved him in his heart Gen 6:6
Rabbi: Did you ever have a son?
Gentile: Yes.
Rabbi: And what did you do?
Gentile: I was happy and I made everybody happy.
Rabbi: But did you not know that in the end he would die?
Gentile: Rejoice in the time of joy, mourn in the time of mourning.
Rabbi: and that is the way things are done before the Holy One, blessed be he. For R Joshua b Levi said, “For seven days the Holy One, blessed be he, went into mourning for his world before he brought the flood, as it is said, And it grieved him in his heart (Gen 6:6) and further it says, For the King grieved for his son (2 Sam 19:3).
“In short,” Fuller says, “the Rabbis interpret Gen 6:6 anthropomorphically without rejecting God’s forknowledge.” Both the Rabbis and modern Rabbinic authorities understand human descriptions of God anthropomorphically and there is no distinguishing between physical and nonphysical anthropomorphisms. They simply communicate about God as anyone must, by using human language analogously to communicate divine spiritual realities.
Open theism asks too much of us to believe. That Christians and Jews have misunderstood history, theology and exegesis.
Some questions, comments and frustrations.
A. In Chapter 5, by Caneday, on page 161, he uses a “rule of thumb.” He says, “Because God formed Adam from the “dust of the earth” and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, making him in his image and likeness, God makes himself known to his creatures in their likeness, as if he wears both their form and qualities, when in fact they wear his likeness.”
On page 164 Caneday quotes Cornelius Van Til: “Man was created as an analogue of God; his thinking, his willing, and his doing is therefore properly conceived as at every point analogical to the thinking, willing and doing of God.” He then says, “The whole human reflects God’s image and likeness.” And then further on he says, “It is not enough to say that anthropomorphism are human ascriptions to God. Rather, our human qualities are themselves but a reflection of God’s person and attributes.”
Question, comment and frustration: I don’t get it. I know we covered this on the anthropomorphism thread, but this REALLY seems confused to me.
On the one hand we are told that these descriptions of God do NOT describe God as he REALLY is. They do not portray who God is in himself. We are told that we are but worms, that is, our human knowledge is sooo limited that this is the best way to describe God or God to describe himself. Yet on the other hand we are told that WE ARE analogues. We are the copies (?) or we are similar, as that is what analogue means. Further down on page 164 Caneday says,
“…we should understand anthropomorphisms first as God’s self-ascriptions, for he is pleased to reveal himself to us in keeping with his own image and likeness into which he molded us from the dust of the ground.
And further,
“…the question we should not ask is not “How can God speak or hear or see?” but “How can we see or hear or speak?” What is the answer? God, who does not have hands, formed man from the dust of the ground as he made man in his image and likeness. Our capacities to speak, to hear and to see reflect our Creator’s qualities.
If we are analogues of God, would not reason demand that some of the attributes that we have (?) also be found in God?
Lastly, one of the main points of refutation that Fuller makes combined with his many quotes is this.
“Yes. The Rabbis and the Fathers use Greek philosophy there is no doubt about that. But that is not the question. The question is, in doing so, did they corrupt scriptural teaching. The answer to that is, no, they did not. The Fathers and Philo used the Greek philosophy for expression and for amplification of the divine attributes that the scriptures already teach.
Question:
A. Isn’t that begging the question?
B. Though we must look at questions of whether similarities involved borrowing, dependence and synthesis, what does a Platonic God look like? Is he in fact VERY SIMILAR to the God of classical theism? How much so? So much so that we could say that a God who shows anthropopathisms (emotion, mental states, etc) is NOT a true reading of Scripture? An anthropopathic God is really a anthropomorphic one? That is anthropopathisms don’t reveal God as he is in himself? Let's look at this question of borrowing, independence and synthesis.
C. How would an open theist repsond to the charge, "Have virtually all Jews and virtually all Christians throughout history misread the Old Testament?"
Have at it.
Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com
Edited by - BBBCanada on 04/03/2003 10:57:30 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 4/3/2003 3:29 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
On the one hand we are told that these descriptions of God do NOT describe God as he REALLY is. They do not portray who God is in himself. We are told that we are but worms, that is, our human knowledge is sooo limited that this is the best way to describe God or God to describe himself. Yet on the other hand we are told that WE ARE analogues. We are the copies (?) or we are similar, as that is what analogue means. ... If we are analogues of God, would not reason demand that some of the attributes that we have (?) also be found in God?
Thanks for the excellent synopsis, Brandon.
One brief comment: I think you are right to Fuller's use of the notion that we are "analogues" of God. The obvious truth of the matter is that we are like God in some respects (e.g., we are personal beings, with an intellect and will) and unlike God in some respects (e.g., we are created, physical, etc.)--thus it is certainly correct to say that we are "analogous" of God, at least to some extent. But a point that is frequently overlooked is that analogy is a LITERAL mode of discourse. When I say, for example, that God is "good" I mean that God is LITERALLY good--it would be unequivocally false to say "God is not good". The analogical aspect comes in when we realize that God is not just good, but supremely good. Thus all earthly and human goods bear some analogy to the ultimate Good, which is God. When someone says BOTH that anthromorphic or anthropopathic passages represent God analogically AND that the passages are FIGURATIVE, they are misusing the concept of analogy. FIGURATIVE is the opposite of LITERAL. When a passage is figurative it is LITERALLY FALSE. What Fuller should say is that anthropomorphic and anthropopathic passages are EQUIVOCAL, not analogical.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/3/2003 7:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Bob: Piper is well respected. Doesn't mean hes right. Calvinists and Arminians disagree. Both have well respected theologians. One is right, one is wrong. Thats why we debate...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnson
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 38
| Posted 4/4/2003 5:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Alan,
God is not good - to those who will experience his wrath in the Day of Wrath (Day of the Lord). God is and will also be terrible to those who do not repent. His justice will remain intack. Along with his holyness.
God is Holy, Holy, Holy. He has holy love, holy hate, holy goodness, holy terribleness, holy compassion, holy anger. Each one of these characters we only know a glimps of and only in the context of our human existence.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 4/4/2003 11:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Ok. Just a couple of responses to "bob" quote unquote and johnson...also quote unquote and then to Alan who I will get to hopefully later today or tmw.
First, "bob."
Some theologians say something like, "Open theists believe that they are the only ones who read the Bible correctly." (Stackhouse) But this is precisely the point.
Some Calvinists will say that every description of God is anthropromorphic. That is, even those descritptions which describe God changing his mind, repenting, etc, do not portray God as he really is. Obviously, some descriptions of God are anthropomorphic and do not describe God as he really is, i.e. God's right arm, God having a posterior, etc. Both the Calvinists of this book and open theists believe that. However, some (open theists) believe that some descriptions of God (anthropathisms, i.e. emotional and mental depictions), are "true" portrayals of God as he is in himself.
Now let me ask you these questions. Just from experience alone. Do we Christians live as though God is immutable and impassible? Don't we live AS THOUGH God is personal? And if God is personal (that is he is not static) then what does this say about other aspects of God? As Pinnock says,
One cannot just introduce dynamic and relational features into the doctrine of God without reconsidering undynamic and unrelational features of it like meticulous sovereignty and exhaustive foreknowledge. The conventional package of attributes is tightly woven. You cannot deny one, such as impassibility, without casting doubt cast on others, like immutability. It's like pulling on a thread and unraveling a sweater.
All theologians recognize this. As a matter of fact, as Pinnock says, some Calvinists are trying to work these themes into THEIR work because they know that most Christians believe them, so much so, that they are taking advantage of the rhetoric of open theism but only with tentative changes. Could it not be that theologians like Fuller and Caneday are coming to the scriptures with preconcieve notions of what they think God should be like? Don't we all, upon reading the Scriptures REALLY encounter a God who is dynamic and relational as oppose to one who is static and unchanging? Are we not ascribing to God qualities that we would normally consider sinful in people (Christians)? So, I wonder if some are not reading the Bible more accurately than others in some very important ways. That is, I wonder if open theists are reading the Bible more accurately than some Calvinists i.e. the authors of this book. I think they are.
And, this should not be looked at as prideful, AT LEAST no more prideful than those Calvinists who insist that THEY are reading the Bible correctly.
Also, to johnson. Does God revealing his wrath mean that he is NOT good? It tells me that he is.
Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnson
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 38
| Posted 4/5/2003 9:39 AM (GMT -6) | | BBBCanada,
No, it means he has justice in His wrath. Those who recieve His wrath will not look at it as being good. And will not think that God is good. God has many charateristics that go beyond just being loving and good. His Holyness encompasses all of his characteristics. So when He says that He hates divorce or that he hates sin or that he hates Esau, He is declairing one of His characteristics. He also means that He hates. However, Gods hating is not like our hating because He is not us.
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and desiring to make known His power, has endurd with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared before hand for glory? Rom.9:22 & 23
| | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/5/2003 10:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Johnson: Your words have so much wisdom to them. Thank you. I'm tired of a "watered down" God and theology that makes God what someone WANTS him to be. I don't even want to be a Christian if that's who God is... some spineless God who's like a puppet on a string who just kind of says, "Oh, I just love you so much that you can just go do whatever you want."
BBC said: "That is, I wonder if open theists are reading the
Bible more accurately than some Calvinists i.e. the authors
of this book. I think they are."
Yes, BBC, I am sure you do believe that, and I am sure that most "Open Theists" think the same thing. What does this mean for us who are not Open Theistic? Does it mean you are all going to heaven and the we are going to hell 'cause we've got our theology all screwed up? This is an honest question. Does it mean that we are missing out on fullness and blessings in our life? I honestly don't know what Open Theists believe about the salvation of a person who disagrees with Open Theist theology and am asking with sincerity.
Edited by - bob on 04/05/2003 10:13:34 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Rpeterso
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 18
| Posted 4/5/2003 11:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Bob: “Oh, I just love you so much that you can just go do whatever you want.”
Rpeterso:
I suggest you read a little more about what Open Theism really is before you employ such irrational and simply absurd statements. Nowhere do Open Theists make such a ridiculous claim. However, we would contend that Christ would say something along the lines of: “My precious child whom I love so much that I am willing to live as one of you and endure the most excruciating death for your sake so that in the end you can join Me in eternity.” That my friend is what encompasses every aspect of our God; “God is love” (1 John 4: 8,16). I suggest you begin there, for all purpose and meaning in this life, every answer to every question, and the very essence of who we are as children of God is found in that one single verse. Love is the Trinitarian God composed of one being and three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) who engage in full and complete self-denial for the others. John 15:13 brings this notion of love and complete self-denial in relation to us humans when Christ says, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends,” which is exactly what Christ did for you and I. This is where all theology should begin, Jesus Christ the Son of God. If you wish to know the attributes of God you must begin with Christ, for he is God in the form of man so that we may truly see God (Colossians 1:15). Through Christ, the concept of God is realized thus rendering love a univocal concept in regard to human love and God’s love. This is so because Jesus’ love as a human is also the Father’s love in action (Colin Gunton, Act and Being, page 147). More simply, the love that Christ has for you and I is that same love (only multiplied about a million times) you share with you mother or wife. I suggest you turn to 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 and wherever the word “love” is used, replace that with the word “God.” Now that is the God I want to dedicate my life to fully and completely, not to one who before the creation of this world decided arbitrarily and specifically who will spend the rest of eternity burning in hell.
-Ryan
| | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/5/2003 12:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Randy: We would contend that Christ would say something along the lines of: “My precious child whom I love so much that I am willing to live as one of you and endure the most excruciating death for your sake so that in the end you can join Me in eternity.” That my friend is what encompasses every aspect of our God; “God is love” (1 John 4: 8,16).
Bob: Well, whatd'ya know, we non-Open-Theists contend the same thing. Go figure! However, when you say "God is love" and I say "God is love", what is our definition of "love"? Perhaps that is what differs.
Forgive me for my misunderstanding of Open Theistic doctrine, but I am not an "Open Theist" scholar. Thus, I do not know all the in's and out's of Open Theism. Does my lack of expertise in the subject thus disqualify me from giving my opinion on here? If so, then there ought to be a disclaimer saying, "Only those knowledgeable about Open Theism may post here."
Randy: I suggest you read a little more about what Open Theism really is before you employ such irrational and simply absurd statements. Nowhere do Open Theists make such a ridiculous claim.
Bob: Thank you for clarifying that for me, and I also have a suggestion-- that you and other "Open Theists" truly live what you preach. Some of you talk the talk about love, but I don't often see it in your comments in these forums in which Calvinists, non-Open Theists, and others who do not ascribe to your beliefs, are either mocked, name-called, and so forth.
Until I see love, humility, and gentleness in your comments, I can not respect those who preach Open Theist theology. When you use words like "irrational", "absurd", and "ridiculous"... well, that is where I form my opinion that there is much pride in defending the Open Theist theology and rather than being defended out of a genuine concern for a person's soul, it is often defended out of a desire to prove oneself correct so as to win the "argument".
Nothing is "irrational," "absurd," or "ridiculous" except to the person who angrily disagrees with it or is offended by the comment made. You see, I do not see absurdity in my comments... but you, feeling offended that I have misunderstood true Open Theism which is near and dear to your heart, have claimed that my comments, which I think are very intelligent, are absurd. It is interesting to note that those three words are nowhere found in Scripture.
As well, you should know that those three words tend to put people off. Your child says to you, "Daddy, I feel fat" and you say, "Honey, that's absurd. That's ridiculous. You are being irrational." You are basically disqualifying her statement and telling her there is no validity in what she is saying because you disagree. Now... say to her, "Tell me more..." and you will possibly have true communication. But tell her, "That's absurd!" and you have made yourself the expert while she is clearly a fool in her thinking (in your opinion). Do you see what I am saying? She will then shut you off not wanting to talk to you about it anymore.
Edited by - bob on 04/05/2003 10:18:13 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 4/5/2003 1:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey everyone,
I hate to jump in, but I have a question. Bob says
quote:
Well, whatd'ya know, we non-Open-Theists contend the same thing. Go figure! However, when you say "God is love" and I say "God is love", what is our definition of "love"? Perhaps that is what differs.
I believe that this is the whole contention in the discussion. (I don't want to be attacking or condensending; My roommates and best friends from college are Calvinists and I love them very much, but I still don't understand their belief.) My basic question to Bob-what is a correct definition of Love?
A comment for Johnson. In response to BBBCanada when he says that God's revealing his wrath shows his love and goodness, you say quote:
No, it means he has justice in His wrath. Those who recieve His wrath will not look at it as being good.
I think that BBBCanada discusses his belief tht God's sense of justice is rooted in the fact that He is Love in the thread "Love and justice...A little windy" in the problem of evil section. What is justice but God showing that he loves peace and righteousness?
Also what is your definition of hate when you say that quote:
when He says that He hates divorce or that he hates sin or that he hates Esau, He is declairing one of His characteristics. He also means that He hates. However, Gods hating is not like our hating because He is not us.
I am not trying to debate, I'm just trying to understand what your position is...
Ross
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/5/2003 5:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Ross,
I suppose your Calvinistic friends and roomates also love you dearly but don't understand your beliefs as well. Well, at least you are able to still love each other!
About your question... that is also what I am asking. What is the Open Theist's definition of love? Is it just 1 Cor. 13 because, if so, I believe that is also probably the Calvinistic person's definition as well. Or does it go beyond that? So, how does one determine who is correct? If there is a new Christian... how does he or she determine which doctrine is the true doctrine? Just some thoughts.
To be honest, I have been a Christian for many years, attended a Chrisitian college, worked for several Christian ministries, etc... but never heard of Greg Boyd, John Piper, or Open Theism until I attended WHC. It was a whole new eye-opening for me. I also am not knowledgeable on Calvinism. Maybe I am Calvinistic and don't know it? Are there any other categorites besides Open Theism and Calvinism? (honest question).
Edited by - bob on 04/05/2003 10:29:15 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/5/2003 6:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi bob,
Just interjecting a bit if I may...
Sorry if you have found some Open Theists to be unkind or rude. I think that perhaps what you are experiencing has more to do with the handicaps of internet communication than with theological persuasions per se. Another likely factor would be the fact that most people who are drawn to theology and philosophy come across as cold and indifferent to those who perhaps are not drawn to those areas of study.
That said, I did want to respond to something you said:
quote:
Nothing is "irrational," "absurd," or "ridiculous" except to the person who angrily disagrees with it or is offended by the comment made.
Lots of things are irrational, absurd, and ridiculous, no matter who agrees or disagrees. It is irrational to believe logically contradictary things.
quote:
As well, you should know that those three words tend to put people off. Your child says to you, "Daddy, I feel fat" and you say, "Honey, that's absurd. That's ridiculous. You are being irrational." You are basically disqualifying her statement and telling her there is no validity in what she is saying because you disagree.
I've known lots of women who thought they were fat, and were quite irrational in thinking so. Because she is definitely not fat by any standards but those of a fashion model, I've told my wife it's absurd for her to think or say she is fat. When I have explained to her why she shouldn't think this, she has seen my point of view, and hopefully begun to see the truth about her body image. One of my strongest character traits tends to be honesty, for good or bad--but my wife says she loves that about me, that she can trust me to speak straight to her when she asks for my input.
In my experience, many people get their feelings hurt easily because they are being ruled by them. I'm truly sorry if that sounds rude or unkind. Reason is a very undervalued quality.
Anybody remember the old Jose Feleciano song, "Feelings, nothing more than feelings..."
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 4/5/2003 6:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Greetings, Bob:
In one of your earlier posts on this topic (which you have since deleted), you mentioned that you greatly respect Mr. John Piper -- who, as you know, is one of the authors of "Beyond The Bounds."
Bob, by your responses (attached below), I think that perhaps you may be taking this discussion more "personally" than the writer intended.
Please don't negatively judge Open Theism (and those who embrace this theology) until you have an opportunity to become better acquainted with the topic.
Thank you, Bob. And, we look forward to your thoughts...
Peace & blessings,
<><
=====================================
Rpeterso wrote:
quote:
We would contend that Christ would say something along the lines of: “My precious child whom I love so much that I am willing to live as one of you and endure the most excruciating death for your sake so that in the end you can join Me in eternity.” That my friend is what encompasses every aspect of our God; “God is love” (1 John 4: 8,16).
Bob wrote:
quote:
Well, whatd'ya know, we non-Open-Theists contend the same thing. Go figure! However, when you say "God is love" and I say "God is love", what is our definition of "love"? Perhaps that is what differs.
Forgive me for my misunderstanding of Open Theistic doctrine, but I am not an "Open Theist" scholar. Thus, I do not know all the in's and out's of Open Theism. Does my lack of expertise in the subject thus disqualify me from giving my opinion on here? If so, then there ought to be a disclaimer saying,
"Only those knowledgeable about Open Theism may post here."
Rpeterso wrote:
quote:
I suggest you read a little more about what Open Theism really is before you employ such irrational and simply absurd statements. Nowhere do Open Theists make such a ridiculous claim.
Bob wrote:
quote:
Thank you for clarifying that for me, and I suggest you and other "Open Theists" truly live what you preach. Some of you talk the talk about love, but I don't often see it in your comments in these forums in which Calvinists, non-Open Theists, and others who do not ascribe to your beliefs, are either mocked, name-called, and so forth.
Until I see love, humility, and gentleness in your comments, I can not respect those who preach Open Theist theology. When you use words like "irrational", "absurd", and "ridiculous"... well, that is where I form my opinion that there is much pride in defending the Open Theist theology and rather than being defended out of a genuine concern for a person's soul, it is often defended out of a desire to prove oneself correct so as to win the "argument".
Nothing is "irrational," "absurd," or "ridiculous" except to the person who angrily disagrees with it or is offended by the comment made. You see, I do not see absurdity in my comments... but you, feeling offended that I have misunderstood true Open Theism which is near and dear to your heart, have claimed that my comments, which I think are very intelligent, are absurd. It is interesting to note that those three words are nowhere found in Scripture.
As well, you should know that those three words tend to put people off. Your child says to you, "Daddy, I feel fat" and you say, "Honey, that's absurd. That's ridiculous. You are being irrational." You are basically disqualifying her statement and telling her there is no validity in what she is saying because you disagree. Now... say to her, "Tell me more..." and you will possibly have true communication. But tell her, "That's absurd!" and you have made yourself the expert while she is clearly a fool in her thinking (in your opinion). Do you see what I am saying? She will then shut you off not wanting to talk to you about it anymore.
Edited by - bob on 04/05/2003 6:09:08 PM
Edited by - Mayflower on 04/06/2003 12:05:11 AM | | Back to Top | | |
| 80 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:37 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 |
|
|