 |
| 
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/9/2003 2:57 PM (GMT -6) |   | John, we seem to be posting at the same time. I don't have any more time tonight to reply to your last posts... I've already been on here way too long... but will reply tomorrow.
I have another question though? If you are not an Open Theist and not a Calvinist and not a Molinist, then what are you? Hmmmm... that sounds more like a riddle, doesn't it?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/9/2003 3:00 PM (GMT -6) | | [quote]
Hi John:
You said: "God knows all certainties as definitely certain and all contingencies as definitely contingent." That is, He does not know less than all that will actually transpire, He knows more than all that will actually transpire (because he knows all possibilities as well as all certainties)".
bob said: Layman terms??? Is there a way to say that without the terminology?
John replies: I was unaware that "contingencies" was such a difficult word to understand. Perhaps "possibilities" would be easier to understand.
bob said: But I still don't get that God knows "less". I will be honest with you... this sounds like foolishness to me. It sounds like a statement that makes no sense.
John replies: The point I think is that possibilities are real, not certain, even to God. And God knows both of these things as they truly are--two different categories. In other words, the future is "partly certain," and "partly open to possibilities." Jesus mission on earth was most definitely predestined, but it does not follow that every other event in history is predestined.
bob said: I majored in English and have had a career in this field and while I'm no theologian and not the greatest English scholar to live, to me this looks like a sentence that I would say, "Edit it.. it doesn't make sense!"
John replies: I am sorry if my writing is difficult for your to get. But I also honestly don't think I should spend time trying to explain the meaning of junior high school terms like "contingency," "possibility" and "certainty" to an English major. 
bob said: Is there a way someone can reword it in simpler terms in which it is more understandable because I know this is one of the primary beliefs of Open Theism.
John replies: At this point, bob, I honestly don't think you are really interested in understanding Open Theism. It seems to me at least that you are mostly intent on attacking a straw man argument (your own preconception of what Open Theism entails).
John said: "I submit that Open Theism is the only theology that is able to make coherent, practical sense out of the clear biblical call to discipleship".
bob said: IF this is true... that Open Theism is the "ONLY" theology that is able to make "coherent" and "practical" sense, then for my 22 yrs. of what I would consider having a relationship with the Lord, I have not. I have been decieved by incoherent and impractical beliefs. Is this true? Would you be willing to say that I have been in error and if so, have I then been "lost"? Am I even saved? I asked someone earlier if they believed that non-Open Theists are going to hell but I received not an answer but a laugh that I asked such a thing. I would like an answer though.
John replies: One's salvation is not determined by their logical consistency, but by their loving submission to Jesus as Lord. Certainly many Calvinists as well as other kinds of Christians have lived lives of commitment to Jesus Christ. It just appears to me that their theology is greatly inconsistent with their practice. That does not mean non-Open Theists are not saved, just that their theology seems inconsistent with their practice.
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 04/09/2003 8:29:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/9/2003 3:06 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
John, we seem to be posting at the same time. I don't have any more time tonight to reply to your last posts... I've already been on here way too long... but will reply tomorrow.
No problem. I hopefully will be able to have some internet time tomorrow.
You said: I have another question though? If you are not an Open Theist and not a Calvinist and not a Molinist, then what are you? Hmmmm... that sounds more like a riddle, doesn't it?
John replies: Probably an Arminian (which I at one time was). As far as I can tell, the simple foreknowledge point of view that Arminianism holds to (God foreknows all in the sense of "foresees" but God does not "cause all" that happens), is just plain illogical. To the Arminian, all future events are definite in the mind of God, and so it seems to me that the Arminian POV on foreknowledge really makes no difference when all is said and done.
To say people have free will (as Arminians affirm) and at the same time to affirm the classical view of foreknowledge (compatibilistic free will) is a contradiction in terms. If a thing is known to God as certain, then nothing and no one can change it.
If God knew from eternity past that Adolf Hitler would commit the atrocities he did, and still allowed him to be born (if not caused him to be born), then God how can it be denied that God himself is the absolute most evil being imaginable?
If God created the world knowing with absolute certainty that the vast majority of mankind would deep-fry in hell for eternity, then I confess I do not understand how it can be said that God is loving, wise, or just.
With Open Theism, passages like the following make clear sense:
Gen 6:5 ¶ Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
7 The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."
How could God possibly be sorry for creating mankind if He had known with absolute certainty precisely what would happen?
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 04/09/2003 8:17:44 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/9/2003 3:59 PM (GMT -6) | | John replies: I am sorry if my writing is difficult for your to get. But I also honestly don't think I should spend time trying to explain the meaning of junior high school terms like "contingency," "possibility" and "certainty" to an English major.
Wow, John... I guess I don't know my junior high words! Hmmmm... perhaps it's not the words but the way they are used in phrases and sentences-- their usage. It seems to me that Open Theists use a lot of these words to create phrases that honestly, again I will say, do not make alot of sense. Sorry, but I see a lot of contradictions and alot of comments like "God doesn't know less than what he knows" and all the other talk about what's possible vs. what's not. But you are certainly making an effort to explain which I appreciate despite your comment about me not knowing junior high words.
Do you have Bible verses that support the claims of "God doesn't know less" and "God doesn't know more?"
I am not intent on "attacking a straw man" argument but I am intent on possibly finding out about what I think might be a false teaching.
Okay... so if you are not Arminian, Molininian, Calvinist, or Open Theist... then what? Or does every Christian fall under one of these categories?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/9/2003 4:02 PM (GMT -6) | | If God does not know ALL things... including what will happen... then He is no greater than a man and he is not GOD but a god.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/9/2003 4:16 PM (GMT -6) | | GREG: I read the beginning of the exerpt from your book and am wondering what translation you used for Jer. 18:7-10. I have looked at several translations and have not found the words "I will change my mind" anywhere.
NIV: "I will relent and not inflect on it the disaster I had planned."
NKJ: "I will relent..."
Amplified: "I will relent and reverse my decision..."
NAS: "I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it."
Eng. Standard: "I will relent..."
I looked up some others on a Bible translation site, but I didn't want to write all of them down... but I found nowhere where it says "I will change my mind."
In your book, where you quoted Jer. 7-10, is that in your own words? Did you state that in your book because on the excerpt you posted on here, I don't see that stated.
I'm just wondering about this.
Also, vs. 12 isn't written that the people were saying "it's no use" as a fatalistic way to themselves, but they were saying it to God with rebellion and stubborness in their hearts.
The Living Bible says: "It is useless for you to stop us..." (vs. "it is no use")
The Amplified Bible says: "But they will say 'That is in vain.' For we will walk after our own devices, and we will each do as the stubborness of our own heart dictates."
I didn't look up any other translations on this verse. But, it appears that they are not saying "Oh, woe is us.. it's no use, we are doomed" but that they are saying, "It's no use God for you to tell us that. We are not going to confrorm to your ways. We are going to do our thing." Those are two very different attitudes.
These people did not want to change. They said (in NIV): "We will CONTINUE with our own plans and we WILL follow the STUBBORNESS of our hearts."
Those were just some things I saw and studied a bit that I don't quite agree with your interpretation of as explained in your book. I have not read a whole lot farther than that and I guess I am wondering how you came to those conclusions about those verses because I don't see that them supporting your belief that God "changes" his mind. Now as far as God witholding things He planned... I can see that. But I don't think that is the same as a changing of one's mind.
Edited by - bob on 04/09/2003 9:21:05 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 4/9/2003 4:33 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
If God does not know ALL things... including what will happen... then He is no greater than a man and he is not GOD but a god.
Hi Bob,
Is this an argument from Scripture? Reason?
If Scripture . . . what Scripture says that God’s greatness hinges on God knowing all things including what will happen? The Bible seems to hinge God's greatness on other attributes like His love, holiness, mercy, faithfulness, power, etc., but not foreknowledge. Isaiah seems to hinge God's greatness in part on God's ability to declare beforehand what God will do. Unlike the idols, God declares what He will do and He actually delivers. Isaiah isn't speaking about foreknowledge, but rather God's ability to do what He says He will do. This is not the same as knowing "everything that will happen".
If Reason . . . what good reasons are there to think that greatness requires knowledge of everything that will happen? Someone might argue the opposite. God would only need a crystal ball to accomplish His purposes if He were limited like a man. But God is infinitely intelligent, powerful, resourceful and so He does not need a crystal ball to accomplish His purposes.
Whadaya think?
Earl
P.S. I'm trying to avoid technicalities, but technically, as Tom pointed out earlier, the open view DOES affirm that God knows all things including what "will" happen. But God ALSO knows what "might" happen. I think this is what John means when he says: “[God] does not know less than all that will actually transpire, He knows more than all that will actually transpire (because he knows all possibilities as well as all certainties).” Make sense?
Edited by - JET on 04/09/2003 9:47:54 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/9/2003 4:53 PM (GMT -6) | | An active Army Chaplain, on NPR, was talking about all the young men who have seen too much. Too much. What he told them was that "God writes in a straight path with crooked lines." Some of them, particularly, dealt with guilt from their lives--either during active work, or life before. And in that state of guilt, something intruded into their lives from the events of the day, the sights, the experiences, the losses of those they know. And that was hard. In their guilt they wondered why it was them that was spared they often felt like it would be better if they had died and their comrades had been "spared." So what the Chaplain told them was this: that while they had been "spared," the question that they had to answer, with their future actions, was this: "What are you going to do now? What are you going to do with what you have been given?"
I liked what he said. As an artist I noticed something in particular. The "image" of "God writes in a straight path with crooked lines" is that it is not entirely literal, or not entirely exhaustive. The image he shared is a sketch. And in that sketch each diagonal line contributed to the direction of the path -- but not even in a way that might be expected. The lines only see themselves; but the path is active. And what it means, at least what it meant to me when I heard it, is that the direction that we know in our "moment" and "locale" on our bit of "line" isn't necessarily revealing of the "direction" of that "straight path." "Path" does not necessarily equal "line." Wisdom for any part of the path is to know the path, and not just know their section of the line.
I liked that.
I also think that there is way too much second guessing about what God . . . (Well, YOU fill in the blank.)
Here's something written for another thread. FITS!
-----------------------------
My wife was making the comment today that God does not live in our timeline. That's a good point. For us to try to put God there is entirely wrong. Idolotrous.
She also expressed her feeling that perhaps "linear time" might be the result of the fall. Could be. Death and the progressive, downward path resulting from sin surely make it appear that way. Could be.
In the "confirming" collumn on her thoughts regarding "linear time" is comparison between that and two other models: Greek circular time, and an upward-helix model. The Bible's view of heaven, and of what we begin to participate in of heaven IN CHRIST fits that third model: growing "upward" yet not suffering change (participating in eternal life).
This bears directly on the games people play with "Creationism." Trying to second-guess how long God could "stand it" in this or that task is foolish--and perhaps a form of idolotry.
This bears, too, on our impatience with the end of things. It bears even more on game-playing with respect to speculations, and proliferation of publications.
God does not wear a watch!
Its fine that those who don't like the Greek model (circular) or outright reactions to it (nominalistic freezing of God in time in a deterministic role) want to avoid the pitfalls of the "classical view", or whatever.
Yet, neither the "classical" nor the "open" are necessary!
God is Personal. For our feeble and limited comprehension we can take some comfort in the model of growth-yet-without-change. Whatever the tension that brings along with it, we should be used to that tension by now. We DO confess of Christ's two natures: "two natures, without mixture and without change, without separation and without division ... without the distinction of natures being removed by such union, but rather that the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and Hypostasis, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old have spoken concerning Him , and as Jesus Christ has taught us, and as the Creed of the fathers has delivered to us. (Chalcedonian Definition)
If we can accept "without mixture, without change, without separation, and without division" (WHICH DOES NOT IN ANY WAY PRETNED TO "DEFINE" GOD--FAR FROM IT!!!) then "growth-yet-without-change" for our own destiny (starting as feebly as we do) and "Life" and "Eternal" for God aught to be comfortable-enough handles for now!
I'm aware of a "fashion" for maximizing the possitive "cataphic" elements of theology. But properly speaking, "theology" is a 'vision of God.' Those who would be wise do not pretend to "know" more than they have directly experienced. Christians, therefore, "know" that God is Love, and can say: "God is Love." And THAT is theology.
There is just LOTS that we don't, and can't know.
Thanks.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/09/2003 10:03:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 4/9/2003 5:33 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I also think that there is way too much second guessing about what God . . . (Well, YOU fill in the blank.)
I agree that a lot of the discussion about divine nescience is “second guessing”. Ultimately, I am comfortable with Paul’s observation, “Who has known the mind of the Lord?” But I nevertheless find it fascinating to reflect on divine nescience. For anyone interested in theology and philosophy, it is natural to reflect on this question because it involves practical issues regarding how one views the relationship between God and man. But, to be honest, there is also the pure intellectual stimulation that draws us into these discussions and, perhaps, there is reason for some caution in over-intellectualizing about “the mind of the Lord”.
I read somewhere that everyone, Calvinists, Arminians, and Open Theists, must deal with mystery, the difference being WHERE the mystery is located. Calvinists place the mystery in the character of God; Arminians place the mystery in the compatibility of foreknowledge and freewill; and Open Theists place the mystery in the future.
Arminians and Open Theists both want to avoid placing the mystery in the character of God. God is good, period. Therefore, it cannot be that “all things take place by his determination and bidding." God is not responsible for sin.
Open Theists want to avoid placing the mystery in the compatibility of foreknowledge and freewill because they see this ultimately as a question of logical consistency. If we allow contradictions here, then on what basis do we reject any other contradictory statement?
Therefore, Open Theists place the mystery in the future. But they affirm that God can deal with an open future. Moreover, they believe that an open future is consistent with the kind of reality that we find ourselves in.
Of course, there are also the exegetical issues, but that’s another story.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/9/2003 7:17 PM (GMT -6) | | I have to keep my dictionary by my desk whenever I come here!  haha! Oh well, I guess I am learning alot of new terms. I did look up "nescience" though and it is not in my dictionary! So I looked online and found: "Absence of knowledge or awareness; ignorance".
Earl, when you say "divine nescience" you must be refering to God not knowing (or choosing not to know) the future? Am I close or no?
Earl, about your question on my comment about God being like man... no that is not Scriptural, just my own little feeling I get when I think of God not being all-knowing. I don't think His greatness hinges on that, but it is a part of Him. Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. I'm not really thinking though so much of His foreknowledge but just His knowledge overall. I guess I think that if He doesn't know the future... well, I just cannot grasp how such an almighty, powerful, amazing God can not know. He who created every star in the sky, every fish in the sea, every grain of sand on the seashore... who created genetics and molecules and bacteria... tears and sweat and blood. I just cannot grasp how this increadible God can not know something. It doesn't add up. Now, I admit I have no clue as to how He knows it all yet still gives us the choices that He does give us. I certainly do not believe we are simply puppets on a string or robots who God controls our every movement and thought, etc. I honestly believe it is a mystery of God... an unexplainable mystery that no matter how much I want to maybe understand... "who can know the mind of Christ."
1 Sam. 15:29 "He who is the glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; fo he is not a man, that he should change his mind." I'm not so much emphasizing Him changing His mind but just that He is not a man where He is limited in His knowledge or His capabilities.
The thought of Him being like an idol (which I mentioned) is that an idol is a god that is not omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. And when I think of God as not being those things... I think of an untrue God... not the God in Scripture... but more like an idol or a man... with limitations. God has no limitations like a man. He is not like a man as far as our limitations, etc. We are His creation and He is our Creator and much of the time, I obey even when I don't understand something. And I think that's alot of what faith and trust is about. God doesn't explain everything to us and it is wrong for us to demand explanations from him... although He is compassionate and merciful and He does want our honest cry when we are suffering and we say things like, "Lord, have you left me?" or "Lord, why is this happening?" But sometimes He does not tell us and our faith matures when we choose to yet serve Him, yet obey Him, yet love Him... even when we don't understand and all of His mysteries and the unanswerable questions.
It is really, really, really hard for me to understand how a God could create a universe... how He can be that EXTREMELY intelligent and powerful... and yet not know all things. When I think of Him knowing all things... I mean ALL things-- the future would be included in "all". It is hard for me to think of it like this: "God knows all things, except He doesn't always know what will happen in the future." Wouldn't that then be a limitation of His?
And again, I have not read Greg's books and am working now on reading a chapter of his that he posted on her. I also have not read any of J. Piper's books or others. And I do not even have a clue what Arminians believe or what Molinism is! :) As for Calvinism, I really don't know much about that either. I did do some internet research quite some time ago and much of it, I have forgotten. It takes ALOT of time to gain knowledge on all this! And then to also talk about it. Whew!
Now, you said that Open Theism does affirm that God knows all things that will happen? As well as those that might happen? Then Open Theism does believe He knows all things of the future, right? I think that's what this would be saying.
That was interesting what you said about all the different approaches handling the future.
About Open Theism placing the mystery in the future... okay, this is the MAIN thing of Open Theism right... an open future? Thus, "Open Theism?"
When you say, "they believe that an open future is consistent with the kind of reality that we find ourselves in " what do you mean by the "reality" that we are in? By open future... meaning that God doesn't necessarily know the future, correct?
Quick question for clarification: Does Open Theism teach that God doesn't know the future or that God CHOOSES not to know the future? Or is it that He doesn't know SOME things in the future? I'm trying to make sure I have a grasp on that because I keep refering to him not knowing the future, but not sure that's the actual teaching.
Thanks for the comments!
I know I'm asking alot of questions and stating how I feel as well, and sometimes things can come across blunt, etc... but I'm trying to word them so they don't. I think the net always sounds harsher than real life and it's easy to offend, so I'm trying not to do that (even though I have opposing views with most of the people here).
I'm just keeping you on your toes with the questions!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/9/2003 7:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Potonwheel... I like the story of the soldier. I too have wrestled with such questions before where I have wondered... why was I so blessed to be born a healthy American baby in a nice city with lots of opportunities and have never had illness or handicaps, etc. while so many others throughout the world are orphans or handicapped or impoverished or oppressed? It is hard to understand and almost seems "unfair".
I never really came to any answer on why one person is blessed and another not (nor do I believe I ever will. It is simply a result of the fall and sin in the world), but I did realize that the Bible says, "To whom much is given, much will be expected" and I came to understand that I must use my blessings (my healthy body, my intelligent mind, my two seeing eyes, and my two working hands, and my abilities, etc.) to minister to those who do not have what I have.
We know that "true religion" is to care for "orpahans and widows" and it is the meek who will inherit the earth and it is the last who will be first, and I think sometimes our "blessings" can end up being things that actually hinder us from closeness to God-- where our trust is sometimes placed in those blessings rather than God.
It is amazing to feel like you have everything anyone could possibly want or need and then to minister to completely impoverished people who have nothing (as far as wordly goods) only to find that they have everything they need for "life and godliness" and it is you who lacks.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/10/2003 1:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Quoted: "Calvinism, Arminianism, and Open Theism"
An old pastor's Seminary professor told the class that anything that ends in an "-ISM" is likely to be idolotry. (This was at CALVIN Seminary, in Grand Rapids, Michigan.) Someone in the class raised his hand and asked, "What about Calvinism." The Sem. professor answered, "Anything that ends in "-ISM."
Jet, it still looks as though "Open Theism" tries to tame God. Watch out.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/10/2003 06:52:56 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 4/10/2003 3:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Bob, Actually I thought] "nescience" referred to knowledge or the content of knowledge or something like that, but I checked and you're right--it refers to lack of knowledge. Thanks.
To respond to you post:
BOB: “Then Open Theism does believe He knows all things of the future, right? I think that's what this would be saying.”
JET: Yes. The question is not “what does God know”. Like Tom said, God knows all truths about the future. So if it is true that something “will” happen in the future, then God knows it. If it is true that something “will not” happen in the future, then God knows this. If it is true that something “might” happen in the future, then God knows that it might happen (which means God also knows that it “might not” happen). So the question is not “what does God know?” Rather, the question is “what is the future like?” Does the future (that God knows perfectly) consist of possibilities? Or is the future entirely settled?
BOB: About Open Theism placing the mystery in the future... okay, this is the MAIN thing of Open Theism right... an open future? Thus, "Open Theism?"
JET: Yes. It is not so much an open view of God as it is an open view of the future. God knows everything. Therefore, if the future is open, then God knows it as such.
BOB: When you say, "they believe that an open future is consistent with the kind of reality that we find ourselves in " what do you mean by the "reality" that we are in? By open future... meaning that God doesn't necessarily know the future, correct?
JET: God does know the future perfectly as it really is. If the future is partly open and partly settled, then God knows it as such. This is the kind of reality we find ourselves in. We find reality revealed in Scripture which depicts the future as being partly settled and partly open. Also, from our limited perspective, we experience the world as partly settled and partly open. Our experience of the world tells us that certain things “will” happen tomorrow and that other things “might” happen tomorrow. Ultimately, WE cannot be sure that what we THINK “will” happen tomorrow will in fact happen tomorrow. And WE cannot be sure that what we THINK “might” happen tomorrow is in fact a possibility given all the variables that are unknown to us. Nevertheless, this is how we experience reality. God, on the other hand, knows perfectly what in fact “will” happen tomorrow and what “might” happen tomorow.
BOB: Quick question for clarification: Does Open Theism teach that God doesn't know the future or that God CHOOSES not to know the future? Or is it that He doesn't know SOME things in the future? I'm trying to make sure I have a grasp on that because I keep referring to him not knowing the future, but not sure that's the actual teaching.
JET: God does know the future. He knows all things about the future. He knows all certainties about the future. He knows all possibilities about the future. So, no, God does not choose to know or not know the future. The fact that possibilities exist has nothing to do with what God chooses to KNOW. The fact that possibilities exist has everything to do with the type of world that God chose to CREATE. Like MephEternal said, God chose to create a world in which we have the ability to exercise our freedom in a way that is not entirely predictable. Therefore, to the extent that the future depends on free choices, the future is not certain (and God knows to what extent this is true). God also knows the limits of our freedom, so He knows what is possible and what is not possible.
Thanks,
Earl
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 4/10/2003 4:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Man, this thread has been active since yesterday afternoon! Couple of questions and comments.
To Bob: This is my simple understanding of the issue. Both sides hold to the statement "God is omniscient." I think the definition of omniscience that Tom used is right on-
“God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods.”
The question is what does God's perfect knowledge contain.
Classical theist claim that God knows the future as settled-one particular future. So the next question is "What is the basis of God's knowledge of the future?"
THE CALVINISTIC VIEW
This is fairly simple to understand. Gos knows the future because all events that occur are directly caused by God. John Earp quoted from Calvin quote:
"But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place, they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge, when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding." Bk 3, Ch 23, s. 6
The problem with this view is evident. If this is the truth about reality, then it would logically entail that God is the author of sin. No one is ultimately responsible for their "choice" to sin because it was not their "choice" at all. For another statement of this theological determinism, you can read Jonathan Edward's "On the Freedom of the Will."Probably most Christians would reject this view of God's knowledge of the future once they see how it denies John's clear statement that "God is Love."
NON CALVINISTIC VIEWS
I think most who have not really thought through these issues would say this about God's knowledge of the future- "God knows what I will freely choose in the future." This is (in VERY simple terms) the Molinistic view. But there is a clear problem with this. Let me try to come up with an example... Lets say that tomorrow I will go out to eat. If I truly have free will, then it is true that I could go to a number of different restaurants. The deciding factor of what will be true lies within me. There is no one truth about my choice tomorrow until I actually make the choice.
Most who I have talked to would say that God just knows because God knows everything. But all theist believe that. What we are trying to figure outis if God knows my future free choices, how does he know them.
C S Lewis makes a good point in the Problem of Pain when he says roughly that when we say that God can do anything, we don't mean that God can do logically contradictory things. God cannot make something that both exists and does not exist at the same time. God cannot make a square circle. God (according to scriptures) cannot lie. And God cannot know what a truly free choice will be if it has not been made yet.
To me there are two options left. The Open View and divine timeless knowledge view. The Open View has been very adequately defended on this thread. But I am still wondering if anyone has any comments to make about simple foreknowledge. This is where I am at. I wrote this yesterday afternoon...(its back on like page one of this thread)
"I was wondering if anyone could give what they see to be the problem with the view of simple foreknowledge. The way I understand this view is that God has knowledge of the future because he is outside of time, he doesn't necessarily have foreknowledge, but sees reality all at once. I have trouble trying to understand how exactly this would work, but it seems to have been the view held by most of the early church fathers (from my basic reading of some of their writings-I could be wrong on this) Specifically this is the view that C S Lewis takes in Mere Christianity, and explains in some detail in an appendix to Miracles.I do not have my copy of the appendix in front of me, but I thought that he made a fairly clear and well argued defense of the position. I've been meaning to pick up the Four Views book where I think Paul Helm defends this view, but from what little I read of that book, some of the argumentation seemed a little over my head."
I think John Earp mentioned this position in passing, but I don't think he was actually addressing the position correctly. C S Lewis says basically that God doesn't foreknow, but simply knows because he is not limited by time. I guess the question here is can God be outside of time? I know that there is someone who would love to address this view.
Looking forward to the continued discussion...
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 | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 4/10/2003 4:10 AM (GMT -6) | | POW said,
quote:
Quoted: "Calvinism, Arminianism, and Open Theism"
An old pastor's Seminary professor told the class that anything that ends in an "-ISM" is likely to be idolotry. (This was at CALVIN Seminary, in Grand Rapids, Michigan.) Someone in the class raised his hand and asked, "What about Calvinism." The Sem. professor answered, "Anything that ends in "-ISM."
I like that. Isn’t it a question of commitment? Are we committed to our “ISM” or are we committed to God? And a question of humility? Understanding that the best system we could ever come up with to satisfy our intellectual curiosity about God would be just that: merely the best system we could come up with to satisfy our intellectual curiosity about God.
quote:
Jet, it still looks as though "Open Theism" tries to tame God. Watch out.
Everything I say about “Open Theism” should be understood as me saying “This is what I see as a conceivable way for me to think about the relationship between God and creation based on what I know, knowing that there is much I do not and cannot know and knowing that, in the end, it doesn’t matter so much what I know but Who I trust.”
Thanks,
Earl
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 4/10/2003 4:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Ross, I’m not the one to summarize the divine timeless knowledge view. Heck, I haven’t even read the four views book. But I know someone who would do a great job summarizing this view and potential problems . . . hint: his middle initial is G, not J.
The problem I have with thinking about divine timelessness is that, even if it were true, it seems like something that I should not even expect to be able comprehend. How could I even begin to imagine how timelessness knowledge “works”? This doesn’t mean it is not true. But perhaps it is not very useful unless it is the only available option. So where I’m at is: if Openness or Molinism are valid options, I have little interest in trying to comprehend the incomprehendable.
Having said that, I would think that the issues surrounding divine timelessness would center around the definition of “time”, potential problems with timelessness and personhood, and whether timeless knowledge can (logically) be of any providential use to God, right?
Thanks,
Earl
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 4/10/2003 5:53 AM (GMT -6) | | I just found this site-- I thought it was pretty well done.
startthinking.homestead.com/philrel_omnisicience.html
It gives a basic summary of all the views were discussing and some proponents of each.
I also was looking at the Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views book that Dr. Boyd contributed to, and it looks like Paul Helm defends a Calvinistic view of Divine Timelessness. If anyone has read--or perhaps, oh,I don't know, CONTRIBUTED to the book I was wondering if the section by David Hunt defends the divine timeless foreknowledge view that I am talking about...
Ross
Edited by - rossfadeinout on 04/10/2003 11:23:24 AM
Edited by - rossfadeinout on 04/10/2003 11:24:04 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 4/10/2003 6:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Hello rossfadeinout,
You ask for comments about the view of God knowing the future from a timeless state.
To me this view hinges on the assumtion that the future exists for Him to know. This view, that the future exists as settled for Him to know is false. If the future does not exist then there is nothing to know and therefore does not degrade God's omniscience. The classical understanding of omniscience has been perpetuated by speculative philosophical definitions of omniscience and not based on a revelation of the true nature of God, creation, and time. (Man is still limited in this knowing because we only know in part but we can know, Romans 1:19-20 and 1 Cor. 12:1-11) The future does not exist as settled in linear time, except as present tense possibilities in the mind of man and spiritual beings who are free agents. That is the nature and extent of what the future is but it does not exist as settled yet in the mind of God, there is hope. God's own purposes in His eternal plan, He being omnipotent, brings to pass in His timing and foreknows.
The nature of His knowing possibilities lies in His knowing the heart of man and sees all prehensions (Whitehead - look it up) as they take place and become choices and settled in this physical world.
Ron Sirkel
Edited by - rsirkel on 04/10/2003 12:25:22 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/10/2003 7:06 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
My wife was making the comment today that God does not live in our timeline. That's a good point. For us to try to put God there is entirely wrong. Idolotrous.
She also expressed her feeling that perhaps "linear time" might be the result of the fall. Could be. Death and the progressive, downward path resulting from sin surely make it appear that way. Could be.
God does not wear a watch!
Hey POW, good to see you again. Here's the issues I have with God "not living in our timeline".
1. Scripture shows God interacting with people, in other words He speaks and then waits for the person to respond. He reacts accordingly to how the person responds. This is what a relationship entails, call and response. He tells Israel, if you do this I will bless you, if you don't, I will curse you. He then waits to see which they do.
2. Can God's knowledge hold two contradictory states concurrently?
Let's have two states, A and B. State A, POW is not married. State B, POW is married. The state change from A-->B is POW's wedding to his lovely wife. No matter how short the "time" the wedding takes, it still requires an interval. With God not experiencing ANY intervals, He knows state A and state B at the same instance, a contradiction. Which state is God experiencing right now? State A AND state B? Which state did He experience when you were 10 years old? Both state A and state B? If I asked God if POW were married, what would He say? Wouldn't both answers be valid for Him at that instance?
Edited by - Laika on 04/10/2003 12:11:38 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/10/2003 1:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Bob-
Wow! A lot has been posted since I last was here. OK, well, I actually haven’t read anything beyond Bob’s second post on page one asking for “simple laymen’s” terms. I feel ya bro! So I hesitate to post this one. But since I already wrote it up off-line, let me post it. Then I’ll read up tomorrow and get back with ya’ll.
Peace,
Tom
-----------------------
It occurred to me that it might be a good thing to actually define what open theists mean when they use the word “possibility.” Doc and others (I included) use the word quite a bit, so maybe it would be nice for us all to have the same idea in our heads (cause not everybody would agree on what a “possibility” is).
Others can correct me if I’m wrong. I’m not an authority on the open view, and I’m not referring to a dictionary, but I’m working with the following understanding:
Event x is a “possibility” if x may occur a) in our world b) given all the variables (divine, human, angelic, and otherwise) of this world.
Since God is the only person who possesses infallible knowledge of all these variables, he alone is never mistaken in his belief regarding the possibility (or not) of some event occurring.
Now, some people don’t believe in an open future and still claim that God does know possibilities. But they do this by defining possibilities differently than I have above. Molinists, for example, limit God’s knowledge of possibilities in our world to “logical possibilities.” What they mean (I take it) is that event x is possible if it’s not self-contradictory. That’s all that’s required for x to be a “possible event.” For example, it’s not inherently self-contradictory that Kennedy not be assassinated in 1963. Therefore, Kennedy’s not being assassinated in 1963 would be, Molinists believe, “possible.”
Open theists mean something more when they speak of an event being a “possible” event. We argue that an event is “possible” if God believes it may occur—here’s the important part—a) in this world and b) given his knowledge of, will for, involvement in, and influence over this world.
First, I say God has to believe it possible “in this world” because determinists may agree that God knows possibilities in the sense that God knows what other events (i.e., other worlds) he might have determined but chose not too. But in this case, possibilities describe only what might have been had God determined things other that he did, never what might yet be in this world we live in. Of course, it may be true that the former makes sense of the grammar of “God knows possibilities,” but it’s not enough to make sense of the grammar of life as we must live it. For “God knows possibilities” to make sense of our life, it must describe knowledge of what “might yet be” in this world, our world, the world God interacts with and to which he holds out possibilities. Who cares about worlds God “might have” created?
Secondly, I say God must believe it to be true given his knowledge, will, involvement, and influence. After everything is said and done in God’s mind and will, God must believe “x may yet occur” is true in order for us to relate meaningfully to “x may occur” and meaningfully relate it to our lives and choices.
Hope I’m not boring ya Bob. Tolerate me a bit more. If an omniscient being believes “x shall happen,” that being cannot also be said to believe “-x may happen” is also true, for “may happen” implies “may not happen,” while “shall happen” excludes “may” and “may not.” See this Bob? “Shall” excludes “may.” They’re incompatible. Doc’s written on this on the Molinism thread too.
So then, as I see it, if God’s knowledge of our future is rightly understood to exclude knowledge of what “may” come to pass, then God doesn’t know possibilities. And if God doesn’t know possibilities, Bob, you can rest assured that there are no possibilities (since God cannot be mistaken in his beliefs). We may believe ourselves free to perform x, y, or z in a particular situation, but this is just our mistaken belief. What’s REAL is that God knows one these “shall” happen and two of them “shall not” happen. Where did “possibility” go? If it doesn’t exist in God’s mind, it doesn’t exist…period. Our “freedom” becomes a matter of knowing or not knowing then. We’re free so long as we are ignorant of which of the three we shall do.
One last note to clarify. I’m not arguing (nor do open theists) that because God knows x “shall” occur, God makes x occur. Craig and others keep reminding us that “shall” does not mean “must,” that because God knows I “shall” do x, this does not mean I “must” (i.e., are less than free in performing) do x. Craig is right. I’m not saying God’s knowledge that I shall do x (of x, y, and z) “makes” me do x. All I’m arguing is that if God knows eternally that I shall do x, this “shows” that I’m not the one determining x. Who or what is determining x? I don’t know. But it’s not me. Hey, I’m not eternal. Surprise! So if my doing x is eternally known to God as a “shall do” and not as a “may do,” then x eternally determined, but not by me. And if I don’t determining x, I’m not morally responsible for x.
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/10/2003 6:19 PM (GMT -6) | | John replies: I am sorry if my writing is difficult for your to get. But I also honestly don't think I should spend time trying to explain the meaning of junior high school terms like "contingency," "possibility" and "certainty" to an English major.
bob said: Wow, John... I guess I don't know my junior high words! Hmmmm... perhaps it's not the words but the way they are used in phrases and sentences-- their usage. It seems to me that Open Theists use a lot of these words to create phrases that honestly, again I will say, do not make alot of sense. Sorry, but I see a lot of contradictions and alot of comments like "God doesn't know less than what he knows" and all the other talk about what's possible vs. what's not. But you are certainly making an effort to explain which I appreciate despite your comment about me not knowing junior high words.
John replies: Hi bob, I did not say you didn't know junior high words; I simply said I don't think I should be trying to explain them to you--because I have absolutely no doubt you certainly know the meanings of these words!  That is why I voiced some frustration, not at ignorance but at what seemed to me to be denial of the obvious on your part.
In any case, it would probably resolve much of this discussion if you might explain your understanding of one word--possibility.
bob said: Do you have Bible verses that support the claims of "God doesn't know less" and "God doesn't know more?"
John replies: In 2 Kings 20, the prophet Isaiah tells King Hezekiah that according to the word of the Lord his illness was terminal and that he would "die and not live." King Hezekiah prays fervently to God, pleading for an extension of his life, and God sends Isaiah back to tell him, "I have heard your prayer," will heal you, and extends Hezekiah's life several years.
From this provocative passage, it necessarily follows either:
1. That God changed His mind as a result of Hezekiah's prayer.
Or,
2. God lied to Hezekiah when he said through Isaiah, "you shall die and not live."
Another illustrative passage is Jonah 3:1-10, in which God repents (changes his mind) as a result of the repentance of the people of Nineveh.
These are only examples of the multitude of passages (see GregBoyd's post in the other thread in which he included passages from his book, _God of the Possible_) that lead me to conclude that the future is open in some way to human interaction with God, and that even God himself knows this and created it in such a way that human moral choices could impact the future for good or bad.
bob said: Okay... so if you are not Arminian, Molininian, Calvinist, or Open Theist... then what? Or does every Christian fall under one of these categories?
John replies: You're asking about me? I believe in the open view of the future, though I realize that any theological position has its "problem texts" with which it must struggle.
That said, I think any Christian who believes prayer changes things has to at least live as an open theist, whether they realize it or not. I doubt "every Christian" has their theological points of view worked out to the extent that they would be comfortable categorizing themselves in the above categories. Most I think simply refer to their denominational background when asked what they believe.
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 04/11/2003 12:01:26 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/10/2003 7:00 PM (GMT -6) | | For Bob, Laika and JET
Thanks for your responses. I think that you deserve replies. You will see that I do’t embrace some of the things that are habits of “Open Theists.” But Earl/JET especially showed the kind of humility that is very important.
quote:
…merely the best system we could come up with to satisfy our intellectual curiosity about God … what I see as a conceivable way for me to think about … knowing that there is much I do not and cannot know and knowing that, in the end, it doesn’t matter so much what I know but Who I trust.
Lets hold onto that. Don’t let it slip.
First, Bob.
Bob, that was a very nice response. Thanks for the way you personalized it.
Next Laika.
You were responding to where I wrote: My wife was making the comment today that God does not live in our timeline. You brought up two things: “Scripture shows…” and “Can God's knowledge hold two contradictory states concurrently?” Since JET’s posts touch pretty near to the second part I’ll wait on that. The first isn’t hard to address. Lets.
Taken from what you said, a good summary seems to be “a relationship entail[ing] a call and response.” That’s GOOD. But lets also consider, to remember, that God also preempts. “while we were yet sinners”, etc. What I want to say now I don’t want to sound liberal. OK? I’m going to call some of the scriptures a “story.” Its literature. That’s not to say that Scriptures are “only” a story. (That would sound liberal.) But Scritpures follow an outline. And they are written following standards with such things as formal symmetry, ceremonies, emblematic events, etc. So when I pause to consider the choice of words “reacts” I don’t think that I should think of that the same way that I’d expect from a man.
I’ve seen pretty much what you yourself wrote many times in the debates ala “Open View.” The drama sketched is a very human, limited image of God. Critics say “made in our image.” They are at least partially correct in their criticisms. But for me, I really do think that “reacts” is real, that it is true. But to frame it in human form is to really under-appreciate it. For a moment think of the word “wrath” and think of “judgment.” Those are also words that are often taken narrowly and simplistically. When we hear “judgment we don’t automatically think of grace; but it can be so – judgment resulting in repentance or limiting evil. When we hear “wrath” we don’t automatically think of grace for that either; but while God is Love and his love is not withheld from his creatures, his love is unyielding. Those rejecting God’s love bear the acts of his will as wrath upon their disobedience and evil behavior and state. Love as a “river of fire” to those fleeing God. Radiance to those who draw near. So what of “reacts.” I don’t like to see God framed as reacting “tit for tat.” I bet you don’t either. Doesn’t God crash through? Doesn’t God seem to withhold, resulting in our actually noticing, and coming back. The “play book” that testimonies can record are too rich to fit the word “react.” But its still a good word. Toss our the “Open View” use of the word, and take up the cause of using it to point to the “OPENNESS” OF GOD’S HEART. That is the use of the word “open” that I like best. God’s ways are personal. “There was a cross in the heart of God.” someone wrote, “before the foundation of the world.” OUR acts can hurt God. Even though in His divinity God does not change, and does not resemble our feebleness, infirmity, dilapidations and dimunitions in His essence; God does personally act (One might notice three things here: “essence,” “person,” and “act.”) towards us. And especially being incarnate and eternally glorified in His humanity, Christ is supremely identified with us, His creations, His Bride. I read today the comment that without us God wouldn’t be “God.” The unchangeable is changed in a way—not in essence though—by his creatures beholding and embracing God as THEIR God.Let the word “react” denote the Personal aspect of our relationship to God. Lets not have it denote anything even inching toward an image of God trying to keep up with events.
That’s half of what you wrote. I’ll try to return to the other half—perhaps I won’t get back. If so, then let me just say quickly that in your asking, “Can God's knowledge hold two contradictory states concurrently?” you don’t seem to leave as big a room as I do for how “knowledge” for the One who’s very words create and divide the cosmos—whose every element depends forever on the logoi that defines their inner essence. A common Biblical phrase, seen throughout scripture is “knows the beginning from the end.” Usually that gets nominalized to constitute merely the one-by-one summation of all instances and things to be “instanced” into a totality. Nominalized. In our limits we feel awe when we realize the gulf between our own aspects of “knowing” theoretically and “knowing” intimately. But how great is God’s knowledge (qualitatively; not quantitatively – though mention of quantity, like the”sands of the sea” does help us).
So, when I read you saying “be valid for Him at that instance I balk. From what I appreciate, not everything that God speaks is so dependant on “an instance.” The Word-Speaker “knows the beginning from the end.”
And “what is to be known” isn’t always measured in instances either. Our “idealizations” are quantitative. Sculptured busts freeze ideals in time – but deny the truth. Ansel Adams’ pictures of Yosemite tell more truth: the mountains really are images of the qualities of the weather upon the mountain rather than tonal sculpts of “eternal” rock.
It is when we forget the future that we calcify moments into “instances” What isn’t merely an instance (“crooked line’s along God’s “straight paths”—in the story posted above!) is part of the fabric of something extending from the “beginning” through the “end,” but finding their meaning even beyond that. (Greg said “points to”; but more seems needed.)
Now, perhaps you will be surprised.
You wrote: “With God not experiencing ANY intervals…” Who says. WHO SAYS. God would really have to be the kind of being that the pagan Greeks thought of to be that.
I think that this is going to move over to JET’s comments. This spans both JET’s and Laika’s. The working is this: “divine timelessness.” Admittedly, an attempt at using words to cobble together something that we don’t know from our own experience. But limits need to be placed against it right from the get go. Sometimes someone will use the phrase “outside of time.” That says some useful things. (Well get back to that.) But what is NOT useful about “outside of time” is that it has its obvious limits. God acts IN time, and TIME itself is God’s actions. Perhaps I can say that God “acts time-ly.” But to get back to the utility of the phrase, there are good things about that phrase too. AND THE STORIES IN MY OTHER POST POINT TO THEM. God does not wear out the way my feet, knees and back do from twelve hours of hard work. God does not need a hot bath! We suffer corruption; God does not. God’s love does not change. YET His love is “new every morning.’ Let me repeat that: God’s love does not change. YET His love is “new every morning.’ That is pretty good illustration of “divine timelessness” as well as the reality of God’s constant and enduring acts within creation, and for us.
While thinking of “divine timelessness´ JET mused: “How could I even begin to imagine how timelessness knowledge “works”?” WHO AM I TO ANSWER YOU!!!!!!!!!
Christ DID have time-ly knowledge. It is beyond me to say much about what the glorified body of Christ is like. Yet I imagine that saints who are less bound by trying to delay dilapidation, and more often ‘seek first the Kingdom,’ know a bit more of the release from time’s downward path. But that is what I have to turn to try thinking about knowledge of creation other-than the knowledge that I have no prospect at all of understanding (creator-ly knowledge). Scripture does tell the true stories of the Transfiguration, and the Resurrected body of Christ. That helps. But as to the knowledge the Creator has, we his creatures are in poor position to know.
You mentioned two things, JET: (1) potential problems with timelessness and personhood, and (2) “whether timeless knowledge can (logically) be of any providential use to God…”
Thomistic emphasis on “divine essence” as determining God’s person presents problems. But beginning, as the Greek Fathers did, with the hypostasis of the Father, the unchanging divinity of God is not a limit on His creating and sustaining, or His mercy and favors. I think that is about the same as saying, that: If ”God’s timeless” determines his person then it determines his acts. But where God’s person, which is Trinitarian, expresses the unchanging divine character, God is free to create the world, to love it, and to receive love, worship and praise.
As to the “providential use” of “timeless knowledge,” I think that you are INSERTING a sequence – another case of “reacting.” TRY in your mind to define the boundary between creation and providence. I’m not sure that I’m up to it—except in the most abstract way. Knowing the “end” before the beginning, that is a pretty useful insight into both how the Creator knows and provides.
I hope that you’ve guessed that I’m not going to be very interested in the Calvinist/Arminian ‘debate.” Perhapse the “Open” commotion is attached to that – as so many of its creators are formatively rooted there. So, when you write, “Open Theists want to avoid placing the mystery in the compatibility of foreknowledge and freewill”, I just scan on down.
You write, JET, that “Open Theists place the mystery in the future.” For me, sure, that is true. the future to me is a mystery. BUT, it takes shape IN CHRIST. The “second” Adam, who is the prototype of the first (interesting inversion) provides what image we have of the future. Saying that the future is a mystery for us is fine. But I don’t say that the future is a mystery for God. Even I know that God (”drawing a straight path with our crooked lines”) mercifully allows and incorporates human actions in history. God created us to be microcosm and mediator: priests between God and creation.
Laika, I hope that I responded to you too. Its late. Got to go.
PoW
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/11/2003 06:31:50 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/11/2003 1:35 AM (GMT -6) | | At the end of the above post I wrote: God (”drawing a straight path with our crooked lines”) mercifully allows and incorporates human actions in history. God created us to be microcosm and mediator: priests between God and creation.
Here's that story from the last page which I'm refering to there:
An active Army Chaplain, on NPR, was talking about all the young men who have seen too much. Too much. What he told them was that "God writes in a straight path with crooked lines." Some of them, particularly, dealt with guilt from their lives--either during active work, or life before. And in that state of guilt, something intruded into their lives from the events of the day, the sights, the experiences, the losses of those they know. And that was hard. In their guilt they wondered why it was them that was spared they often felt like it would be better if they had died and their comrades had been "spared." So what the Chaplain told them was this: that while they had been "spared," the question that they had to answer, with their future actions, was this: "What are you going to do now? What are you going to do with what you have been given?"
I liked what he said. As an artist I noticed something in particular. The "image" of "God writes in a straight path with crooked lines" is that it is not entirely literal, or not entirely exhaustive. The image he shared is a sketch. And in that sketch each diagonal line contributed to the direction of the path -- but not even in a way that might be expected. The lines only see themselves; but the path is active. And what it means, at least what it meant to me when I heard it, is that the direction that we know in our "moment" and "locale" on our bit of "line" isn't necessarily revealing of the "direction" of that "straight path." "Path" does not necessarily equal "line." Wisdom for any part of the path is to know the path, and not just know their section of the line.
I liked that.
I also think that there is way too much second guessing about what God . . . (Well, YOU fill in the blank.)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/11/2003 5:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for your reply(s)
quote:
TRY in your mind to define the boundary between creation and providence. I’m not sure that I’m up to it—except in the most abstract way. Knowing the “end” before the beginning, that is a pretty useful insight into both how the Creator knows and provides.
That would be "declaring" the end from the beginning:
quote:
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.—Isaiah 46:9,10
Declaring that I will wear white socks tomorrow doesn't mean I see the future.
_________________________
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/11/2003 7:21 AM (GMT -6) | | (The following is meant partially as humorous banter, partially as serious reflection).
"God writes straight with crooked lines" = "Up is down, black is white, right is wrong, and good is evil." Yada, yada, yada. Typical Calvinistic nonsense. Where do we find statements like "God writes straight with crooked lines" in the Bible (or even the implication that such is the case)?
(I mean that in the nicest possible way).
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
| 309 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:24 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 |
|
|