 |
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/14/2003 8:15 AM (GMT -6) |   | "Open Theism" and the "Timeless God" view share MUCH in common:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Lastly, as amazing as it may seem, the simple-foreknowledge model seems to me to be…
…nothing more than pre-recorded open theism!
Tom
Way to go Tom! I agree.
THAT is one of the reasons that I am COLD towards BOTH "Open Theism" AND Calvinism. They are almost the same thing!!!! (Trying to 'bate' you!)
Above Laika asked me about something related: That would be "declaring" the end from the beginning. ... Declaring that I will wear white socks tomorrow doesn't mean I see the future. So, Laika put both pre-determining and "foreseeing" on the table at the same time in the same space.
And a light bulb went "off"/"on" (?) for me.
I then said: "Seeing" the future means that you are stuck on the opposite end of it. SO... that is remarkably parallel to what you say above. (Though not exactly the same.) BOTH "FORESEEING" AND "PRETETERMINING" LOCK GOD IN THE PAST, EITHER DECIDING OR PRE-KNOWING THE FUTURE. 'Lots of ink has been spilt' on examining and arguing the differences between "pre-determining" and "foreseeing"; but the similarity is what I've noted today.
Dump them BOTH.
Here's another thing I've been considering today:
We can define the relations between God and his creature in the categories of causality. In this case, God is the first cause who puts all things in motion, shows the way and returns all to this path. Human freedom is only the secondary instrumental cause drawing its origin from the primary, and determined by it. If the secondary cause sins, it is only because the primary tolerates it. Causal determinism is fatally situated in time, the primary movement finds itself inevitably there. That which establishes the primary cause is the universal pre-cause of all, and the prefix "pre" introduces time into the eternity of God. Humankind does not appear except inevitably, as the object of divine action. In such a causal scheme, the dubious Augustinian idea is led, through the iron logic of Calvin, to its conclusion: predestination to glory, condemnation to hell. The circle is buckled in upon itself without any possible exit: "Therefore according to the end for which humankind is created, we say that it is predestined to death or to life."
For the Eastern Church, God is never the primary cause, but the Creator. It is creation "in the image" of the Creator which places the "second freedom" outside any causal determinism, and the patristic conception of humankind as autexousia, self authoritative, rightly defines its mysterious capacity to transcend every necessity and the very condition of the creature over against divine freedom: to see oneself as microtheos, as God-in-miniature. One can even say that God, the Lover of humankind, is much more determined himself by his creation and his covenants than the creature by his Creator: "The Lord has sworn and he will not change his mind" (Ps 110:4). The Incarnation appears as God's reply to his own promise: the divinizing of his creature. The fall of man reveals the titanic fullness of our freedom, which in turn, determines our own destiny. Satan did not lie in saying: "You will be as gods." Man has created something which never existed before. We created evil and introduced it into our innocent nature. What is more, our salvation determines the shape of the Incarnation as Love crucified. Divine blood has been shed to safeguard our freedom in grace, for, according to the Fathers' saying, "God is not able to force anyone to love him."
I bet lots of people venturing onto this board would guess that "Calvinism" would situate God "timelessly." Surprise.
(Though "pastorally, much is accomplished that steriotyped systems don't handle.)
As Evdokimov says above, "...the prefix "pre" introduces time into the eternity of God..."
"God is CREATOR." Leave it at that and let the pot simmer.
PoW
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/14/2003 8:38 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.
"does not live in our timeline"
"linear time" (verses what? sideways time?)
What do these mean? They speak "outside time" to me. Do sequential events occur in the opposite order to God?
Before the fall, did events occur in a non-sequential order?
It's quitting time, I'll see you tomorrow.
_________________________
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/14/2003 9:18 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"does not live in our timeline"
"linear time" (verses what? sideways time?)
What do these mean? They speak "outside time" to me. Do sequential events occur in the opposite order to God?
Before the fall, did events occur in a non-sequential order?
Laika: What do these mean?
PoW: There are two thing I see there. First, as to "does not live in our timeline," WE live (not God) in a "linear time line." OURS is a slope downward to death. Change means death, not everlasting life. Noice the work of the fall in that. (And part of that is whatever was to be the case in Eden. Adam and Eve could have matured... some change, but not the same kind of change.) God does not live in our "time." Infact, 'time' needed redemption! (See Rev. in the New Jerusalem.)
Second, as to "linear time," a THIRD kind of model for time is more biblical. Greeks had the "cyclical" (and hindu), "linear" doesn't work. A helex is a pretty good candidate. Upwards spiral. Change but not the shedding implied by death and rebirth, because in the New Jerusalem that will be "accomplished." Yet, if C. S. Lewis borrowings from Athanasias are any measure, we WILL continue" to grow closer to God, more and more.
As to God. God is personal, yet does not change. We just have to throw up our hands and conceed that we can't handle opposites -- but with God there are lots of them. Just take the incarnation (mentioned above) for example.
Now, I've SEEN people trying to whittle God down to human size, create designer Christologies, and do-it-yourself Trinitarian theory. Blaaaaa!!!!
Lets opt for theological humility.
See you.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/14/2003 3:56:13 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/14/2003 10:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Daniel 4:35-- "ALL the peoples of the earth are regarded as NOTHING [not that they aren't loved, but as far as their power, it's zilch in comparison to God]. HE DOES AS HE PLEASES with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. NO ONE can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?"
Job 37:5 "... He does great things BEYOND our understanding."
Job 40:19 "He [the mighty and huge leviathan] ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker CAN approach him with his sword."
Job 41:10-11 "... Who then is able to stand against me? Who has a claim against me that I must pay? EVERYTHING under heaven belongs to me."
Isaiah 40:28 "Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding NO ONE can fathmom."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
LAIKA said: "So the choice to love God resides with us. We make the choice, and that choice doesn't exist until we make it."
BOB says: You sound just like Greg Boyd. No, God doesn't make robots, but can people make "robots" who repeat their teachings without questioning them at all? What I mean is... have you yourself ever searched Scripture on your own to find out if this is a correct or false teaching or do you just reiterate word for word what Dr. Boyd has spoken? The comment above sounds like a direct quote from Dr. Boyd. I don't say this to be rude to you Laika or to discredit Dr. Boyd, but to ask you... do YOU search Scripture and see if this teaching is true or false? Does Dr. Boyd encourage you to do that? Any good pastor will encourage a person to search Scripture to see if what he is saying is true or not. When you say what you did above,it just sounds exactly like what I've heard/read from Mr. Boyd.
I dated a Mormon boy once and I remember how he'd just reiterate all that he was taught without ever questioning it. He'd say, "I know that I am a Christian. I know what I believe is true." It was "true" not because it was from Scripture but because he had been taught it without questioning it. It was "true" because of his loyalty to his family who taught it to them. To question it would be for him to be unloyal to them. Yet, the Lord in His Word, cautions us against loyalties to men (so does Paul in 1 Cor.).
Laika, NO choice resides "with us" unless God allows it. We are not "masters of our destiny". We are NOTHING without God. Our bodies are made of flesh, blood, bones, and organs. God is the one who breathes life into us and enables us to feel, to think, to talk, etc. Without God giving us that life, sorry, but we are NOTHING but a bag of bones! We may "make the choice" but it is God who enables and allows it.
LAIKA said: "God is not able to force anyone to love him." There's something God can't do."
BOB says: I don't know the guy who said the above quote that you referenced; I've never heard of him... but I would say that yes, God CAN and COULD force any single peson to love him if He chose to. As it is, He does not chose to, but that is not to say He can't. This is one of the most heinous claims about God I have ever heard in all my life... that God is not able to do something!! Do you really understand what you are saying? You are saying that God can't do something. I mean, do you understand the profoundness of that statment and that if it is not true, the lie that it says about God. If God CAN do ALL things, then what you are saying is the total opposite of that. One or the other is true for they both cannot be true. Either God can or He can't. I would hesitate to speak for God unless I found it directly stated in His Word. I have yet to find the verse that says that God can't do something.
You said Laika: "A flaw in His plan". Sister (I think you are a "sister," not a brother?), do you realize what you are saying about GOD? His plan is flawed. He is limited. He cannot do something. It makes me think of those above verses from Job where Job's friends thought they had God all figured out but they spoke in arrogance and ignorance. God told them: "You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has." (ch. 42 vs. 8)
If you are correct in your knowledge of the Lord and His abilities, then great... but if you are not, then you are saying something very serious about God... something that is not true and that maims His character.
This holy God who created the heavens and the universe at His command, who gives and takes life, who speaks and the winds and sea obey Him... you are telling me that He can do these things, yet there are some things He cannot do... and you do NOT give me Scripture to back up your claims but you give me your human understanding and reasoning. I mean, sure it sounds good... but WHERE IS THE SCRIPTURE that says "I can't do all things" or "There are some things God can't do and some things God doesn't know."
LAIKA said: "I created my kids, yet I can't force them to love me."
BOB says: No, you can't because you are not God. You do not have the power that God has. God, if He so chose to or wanted to, COULD very well FORCE you to love Him. He is a loving God though who does not force us to love Him but it certainly is not outside his ability to do so. Also, YOU did NOT create your kids. God created them! He created the egg and the sperm. He created the embreyo and the baby. It was not you who created the heart that enabled them to have life, or the lungs that allowed them to breathe, or the ears giving them hearing, or the blood flowing through their veins. You did not create life. God is the ONLY Creator of life so give credit where it is due. Yes, you did what was necessary to result in the egg and sperm meeting, but it was not you who created that life that resulted. However, it is God who CREATES us, and if He wants to make us be robots and love Him, He sure can do that. As we know, He does not do that because He does not want to do that because of His great love for us.
LAIKA said: "He's not limited if He can't know the un-knowable".
BOB says: "Huh? Sorry, you lost me there. I don't quite understand what you mean with that statemtent."
Edited by - bob on 04/14/2003 3:17:22 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/14/2003 10:57 AM (GMT -6) | | POW: did I really go that far over... you and Laika (esprecially) better be careful! The two of you are challenging the true character of God as revealed in the gospel of Bob...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 4/14/2003 10:59 AM (GMT -6) | | bob said:quote:
I would hesitate to speak for God unless I found it directly stated in His Word. I have yet to find the verse that says that God can't do something.
Titus 1:2 
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 4/14/2003 11:15 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Laika, NO choice resides "with us" unless God allows it. We are not "masters of our destiny". We are NOTHING without God. Our bodies are made of flesh, blood, bones, and organs. God is the one who breathes life into us and enables us to feel, to think, to talk, etc. Without God giving us that life, sorry, but we are NOTHING but a bag of bones! We may "make the choice" but it is God who enables and allows it.
Roberta, you keep living like that, mmmkay? Where as more rational people realize that we aren't animate because God breathed a soul in us--whatever that is. I thought the word for soul was nephesh which means "to give life" or "to animate." I am under the impression that life is self contained, and doesn't need a Divine sustainer to keep it animate.
But You talk about Laika possibly believing anything without question? What about you? You are under the impression that somehow the only way that you or I are animate is because God breathed some sort of "stuff" in us that keeps us alive. How does that explain how all of your cognitive capacities are contingent on your brain states(i.e. neural firings)? That everything you know about the bible is based on the assumption that you are able to comprehend it because you have a functioning brain? Could you show me where in the causal nexus the intervention of the divine to keep that brain functioning happens?
quote:
but I would say that yes, God CAN and COULD force any single peson to love him if He chose to. As it is, He does not chose to, but that is not to say He can't. This is one of the most heinous claims about God I have ever heard in all my life... that God is not able to do something!!
1 Corinthians 13:4-7
4 Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant 5or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. 7It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
If God is Love, and this is Paul's belief on what love is, how come God doesn't, according to your above statement, fit this criterion? How is it if God could force someone to love, and Paul says love doesn't insist in its own ways, is God able to do something conrtardictory to God's nature as love? Are you suggesting if God wants to, God could lie? If so, how do you know God isn't lying to you and making you think God has all these powers to do things antithetical to God's nature?
"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne
Edited by - A_Theist on 04/14/2003 4:22:29 PM
Edited by - A_Theist on 04/14/2003 4:24:59 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/14/2003 12:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Bob: You (Laika) sound just like Greg Boyd. No, God doesn't make robots, but can people make "robots" who repeat their teachings without questioning them at all? have you yourself ever searched Scripture on your own to find out if this is a correct or false teaching or do you just reiterate word for word what Dr. Boyd has spoken? ... do YOU search Scripture and see if this teaching is true or false? Does Dr. Boyd encourage you to do that? Any good pastor will encourage a person to search Scripture to see if what he is saying is true or not.
Doc: I don't know why you go to these personal speculated places Bob, but will you please stop it? It doesn't contribute to anything we're about on this board. Its rather frustrating. Indeed, quite frankly, this is about the most insulting, rude and ungrounded thing I've yet read on this board ... and that's saying something!
You should be more careful in making such assaults Bob. They usually say much more about the person assailing than they do the assailed.
What the heck is this board about if not an encouragment to people to think for themselves!!!!!????
And where on earth did you ever get even the suspicion that if something a) likes someone's thought; b) repeats someone's argument; c) quotes someone's material.... they are not thinking on their own? Most if not all thinking is done in dialogue with someone elses thought... and we usually end up agreeing, more or less, WITH SOMEONE.
As an aside, just FYI, the "robot" analogy is hardly new with ME. Indeed, its pretty pervasive in anti-Calvinistic literature the last several decades. And the reason is because its a pretty obvious analogy to the idea that people are determined by a force outside themselves.
Can we please stick to dialoguing and critiquing IDEAS on their own merits, and leave out any and all ad hominem speculations. Debate Laika's IDEAS and the logic by which he or she supports them.
Thank you,
Greg
ps. The danger of posting this is that the thread will now get further off track and be about Bob's defense of what she said. Can we please just still to the MERIT OF IDEAS!!!?
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.
Edited by - GregBoyd on 04/14/2003 5:07:27 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/14/2003 12:35 PM (GMT -6) | | 1 Corinthians 13:4-7
4 Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant 5or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. 7It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
A_Theist said: How is it if God could force someone to love, and Paul says love doesn't insist in its own ways, is God able to do something contradictory to God's nature as love? (great logic A_Theist)
Titus 1:2 (good find Brett)
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Laika said: "God CANNOT force someone to love him"
Just like God CANNOT lie because it is contrary to His nature God CANNOT force someone to love Him because that is also contrary to his nature. Slam dunk. Checkmate. Case closed.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/14/2003 12:58 PM (GMT -6) | | In my view, Roberta's comments do touch upon a past issue that has surfaced between Open Theists and "Not so Open" Theists, being the claim that both Calvinism and Arminianism are not based upon the Hebraic view of God found in the Bible, but rather a synthesis between it and a Hellenistic view of God. As I recall, "Not so Open" theists returned the charge that Open Theology was also dependent on a "non-Christian" philosophy, particularly that of Alfred Whitehead. Let us presume that both are, more or less, correct, historically-speaking. Both reflect the appeal to ontologies that the original gospel-writers may not have been aware of.
For example, an ontological belief at stake in this debate is that there is a finite amount of power, or decision-making(or as we prefer to call it in economics, governance), taking place in the world. For someone to have power is for them to be able to make decisions independent of the actions of others and that affect others(Of course, in real life, we are always in a state of mutual manipulation over the decisions that we make. I.e., politicians try and define the issues that will determine election outcomes, while at the same time adapting their policies to maximize their chances of retaining power.). This governance includes the decision to accept salvation or not. Ultimately, either God makes this decision or individuals do. It cannot be both at the same time.
I know muslims that see God in the way Roberta does(that isn't intended to be an anti-muslim or Roberta remark, but just to point out that there are some strong similarities in the theological problems). I think this relates to the role Theology has historically played as a psychic balm. I.e., God giving up power, apparently considerable power when one considers the history of anti-semitism/racism/condoning of torture/etc. etc., can be a source of angst in the Christian life. A belief that God is in control, even though it raises the problem of evil, can serve as a stop-gap against these doubts, including fears of losing one's salvation.
So my point of view is to accept that when I do theology, I am not operating only from the Bible. During the Medieval Ages, Theology developed as an attempt to reconcile their faith in the Church with their faith in Aristotle. Today, I think it is an attempt to reconcile our received worldviews with the different worldview, belonging to Y’shua of Nazareth, we confront within scriptures, which should be done with great deference to scriptures and Christian traditions as they have developed over the past two millenias. This is what I like to call, "An Open View of Theology".
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Arrogance that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/14/2003 1:01 PM (GMT -6) | | LAIKA... just another quick thought I had. I was thinking about how Satan and demons have the ability to possess a person... completely controlling their mind and body. Example: Luke 22:3 "Then Satan entered Judas..." It thus appears that Satan has greater power than God! God cannot "possess" someone... cannot "force" someone to do something, yet Satan can? This would thus mean that the creation is greater than the Creator. No creation is greater than the Creator (God), not man and not satan. But if even a creation... a demon or satan... has the ability to "possess", I am cerain God also has that ability. HOWEVER, Satan possesses a person because He disrespects that person... he hates that person and could care less about the person. On the other hand, God has great love for us and does not simply possess us the way Satan has done (as evidenced in Scripture). He CAN if He wanted to, but clearly, He wants us to come to Him out of love and not out of Him forcing us to.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/14/2003 1:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Maybe the problem is just one of semantics then...
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Arrogance that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/14/2003 1:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Maybe the problem is just one of semantics then...
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Arrogance that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/14/2003 1:13 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Laika said: "God CANNOT force someone to love him"
Just like God CANNOT lie because it is contrary to His nature God CANNOT force someone to love Him because that is also contrary to his nature. Slam dunk. Checkmate. Case closed.
thanks,
Iconoclast
Sorry, BRO! But, based on personal speculation here, I'm going to say that you are "wrong." I'm going to say twice that Rocks praise God: "Rocks praise God! Rocks praise God!" Soooo, I'm concluding that God CAN create things that HAVE to praise Him. And I'm going a step further in saying that while the first part you said--about lying--is true, the second part is more along the lines of what BOB said. (And I said before her.) God chose to make us that way: that it is our nature to not be forced to love him. God's not going to change. (Remember that, folks!) God's spoken word created people with a particular nature according to His will for us. God's just not going to reverse that. God desires NOT to replace our nature, but to renew it, in Christ.
Notice that I bridged the gap rpetty nicely between Laika and Bob. (Does that mean that both of them will get on my case?) Bob, if you want to understand what Evdokimov was saying, go back and read my comments on it! God didn't make us love Him because he desired for us to love him in a particular way -- different from rocks. He created us to be "microcosm" (as part of the creation) and "mediator" (as prophets/priests/kings).
Soooo.... AMENDING Icon's post: God CANNOT force someone to love Him because that is also contrary to his will for our nature.
Is THAT fine with everybody?
PoW
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/14/2003 6:16:10 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/14/2003 1:26 PM (GMT -6) | |
Iconoclast
Sorry, BRO! But, based on personal speculation here, I'm going to say that you are "wrong." I'm going to say twice that Rocks praise God: "Rocks praise God! Rocks praise God!" Soooo, I'm concluding that God CAN create things that HAVE to praise Him.
I think praise must be chosen for it to truly being praising. If someone praises someone because they have to, that would be like advertisers telling us to buy a product because the product's sellers are paying them. To praise(according to Websters) is to extol and glorify, but what good is this if the one being extolled and glorified makes this take place.
So I would suspect that your scripture quote is taken out of context,
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Arrogance that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/14/2003 2:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Sorry to confuse, but I have changed my name from "Bob" to "Bobbie" so to clarify my gender!  Or you can call me Roberta if you like!
"With God ALL things are possible" Matt. 19:26 | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 4/14/2003 2:08 PM (GMT -6) | | BOB says: quote:
I don't know the guy who said the above quote that you referenced; I've never heard of him... but I would say that yes, God CAN and COULD force any single peson to love him if He chose to. As it is, He does not chose to, but that is not to say He can't.
Hi bob ( i tried to spell the name backwards, but it came out all wrong) ,
What do you see as the difference between God saying he won't do something and God not being able to do something?
It appears to me that what the Open Theist folks are saying is that God can't do the things He said He wouldn't do.
peace and love, don
---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/14/2003 2:14 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW said : "I know muslims that see God in the way Roberta does".
Could you clarify in what way and clarify how you see that I see God (not said defensively but with sincerity wondering what muslims believe that is the same and as well how you perceive me to see God)? Something very, very important to keep in mind... the god of Muslims is not the God of Scripture. I'm not sure the similarities in how we see them (but am interested in hearing), but if there are similarities, it is important to remember that there are two different Gods.
Bobbie (formerly "Bob")
"With God ALL things are possible" Matt. 19:26 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/14/2003 2:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Greg said: I don't know why you go to these personal speculated places Bob, but will you please stop it? It doesn't contribute to anything we're about on this board. Its rather frustrating. Indeed, quite frankly, this is about the most insulting, rude and ungrounded thing I've yet read on this board ... and that's saying something!
Bobbie says: Sorry to offend you Greg, but when Laika said that, it did not sound like her own words/thoughts. It sounded like your words. I understand that it must be frustrating to have someone who is disagreeing with you, but I am wondering-- do you encourage the people in your church to search Scripture to find for themselves whether what you teach is true or not? I have been in churches before where the pastor encourages that of the people because he does not want them to just take his word dumbly but to search the Bible for themselves. When Laika said what she did, it sounded straight from one of your books. I am not sure as to why you find it insulting? Insulting to you or insulting to Laika? What might be helpful is if you could tell me how it is ungrounded, rude, and insulting.
Here is what I said: "You (Laika) sound just like Greg Boyd. No, God doesn't make robots, but can people make "robots" who repeat their teachings without questioning them at all? have you yourself ever searched Scripture on your own to find out if this is a correct or false teaching or do you just reiterate word for word what Dr. Boyd has spoken? ... do YOU search Scripture and see if this teaching is true or false? Does Dr. Boyd encourage you to do that? Any good pastor will encourage a person to search Scripture to see if what he is saying is true or not".
Greg, I know that you are a very intelligent man and you are familiar with Hitler and WWII. People blindly followed Hitler because they did not question what he said. They reiterated his beliefs with no question and no disagreement. Please don't get me wrong here-- I am NOT saying you are anything like Hitler!!! I am just using that as an example of someone who said things to people who loved him and they did not question what he said. It is very easy (and I imagine tempting) for leaders to create loyalties to them and to their beliefs. This happened when Paul was preaching. There were quarrels among the people over their loyalties, not to Jesus, but to the leaders and preachers. 1 Cor. 1:12 "...One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
My questions to Laika were honest and sincere and not intended to "cut" you, Greg. Why is it rude or insulting to ask her if you, as her pastor (I guess I should not have assumed you are her pastor. My mistake-- for some reason I assumed that? Maybe she mentioned it. I can't remember now), encourage her (and all those in your church) to search Scripture to see if what you are saying is in line with Scripture? It is an honest question of which I do not know if you do or not. In my time at WHC, I did not hear you do this, but that is not to say you don't. To me, when a pastor does this, He is telling his church to get in the Word, to make sure he is preaching truth, and it is a show of humility on his part as well.
Please tell me how my words were rude, insulting, and ungrounded and I will be careful so as not to be rude/insulting/ungrounded again. I don't see them being these things but rather I see them as sincere, honest questions to something Laika said that sounded exactly like a simple reiteration of something you have said and immediately gave me an impression of a person who believes what they do because it has been taught to them (by you) and accepeted without question.
Leaders often do create "robots". This is not to say you do, but when Laika replied to me with words that sound like a straight reiteration of your words, it immediately makes me think of a robotic type response. I would agree that assaults say more about the person doing the assaulting, but I do not agree that my questions to Laika were "assaults". Assault: "A sudden, violent attack; an unlawful or violent attempt to do bodily harm." (Webster's Dictionary)
Greg said: "And where on earth did you ever get even the suspicion that if something a) likes someone's thought; b) repeats someone's argument; c) quotes someone's material.... they are not thinking on their own? Most if not all thinking is done in dialogue with someone elses thought... and we usually end up agreeing, more or less, WITH SOMEONE".
Bobbie says: I actually don't really have that idea. Laika's words just struck me in that way when I read them. Maybe it was because she did not quote them as being from you? I'm not sure. I often use words from others as well so I don't think someone isn't thinking on their own if they do what you mentioned-- like a person's thought, repeat the argument, quote someone's material... although if they quote someone's material (which is what it sounded like she did but I cannot say that for certain), they need to reference it as so. However, we both know that many people do not think on their own and they do follow leaders... whether the leader is good, bad, right, or wrong. This is very, very clear throughout history. If your teachings are truly Biblical, then there is no reason for you to feel upset, is there?
"With God ALL things are possible" Matt. 19:26
Edited by - Bobbie on 04/14/2003 7:47:10 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/14/2003 2:56 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I think praise must be chosen for it to truly being praising. If someone praises someone because they have to, that would be like advertisers telling us to buy a product because the product's sellers are paying them. To praise(according to Websters) is to extol and glorify, but what good is this if the one being extolled and glorified makes this take place.
So I would suspect that your scripture quote is taken out of context,
dlw
DLW: ...your scripture quote is taken out of context...
PoW: I had no scripture. I was speculating. But once challenged I'll go find some:
quote:
Psalm 69:34 "Let heaven and earth praise him, the seas and all that move in them,"
Can God's works priase Him? Can God's works glorify Him?
YES, and YES!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/14/2003 3:16 PM (GMT -6) | | POW
quote:
Laika said: "God CANNOT force someone to love him"
Just like God CANNOT lie because it is contrary to His nature God CANNOT force someone to love Him because that is also contrary to his nature. Slam dunk. Checkmate. Case closed.
thanks,
Iconoclast
Sorry, BRO! But, based on personal speculation here, I'm going to say that you are "wrong." I'm going to say twice that Rocks praise God: "Rocks praise God! Rocks praise God!" Soooo, I'm concluding that God CAN create things that HAVE to praise Him.
Iconoclast
Are you trying to suggest that rocks can actually love God? Is love the same as praise? Yes all knees shall bow but will all hearts love God? Sounds downright universalist.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/14/2003 3:20 PM (GMT -6) | | [quote]
DLW said : "I know muslims that see God in the way Roberta does".
Roberta said:Could you clarify in what way and clarify how you see that I see God (not said defensively but with sincerity wondering what muslims believe that is the same and as well how you perceive me to see God)? Something very, very important to keep in mind... the god of Muslims is not the God of Scripture. I'm not sure the similarities in how we see them (but am interested in hearing), but if there are similarities, it is important to remember that there are two different Gods.
It comes down to the concept of their being a finite, but growing perhaps, amount of decision-making in the world we live in. When I was in graduate school, I led apologetic study sessions. One semester, I had a muslim from Pakistan in my session. From his view, he said that God does give people choices, but this does not in anyway take away from his power. But this contradicts the view that the amount of decision-making taking place in our world is finite, whereby for us to have free-wills about how we live our lives requires that others(even God) are unable to predetermine our choices. In that case, they would be the ones making the choices, ultimately.
Islam was a synthesis of the form of Christianity that was prevalent in Mohammed's time and Judaism. Records have shown that when Mohammed arrived in Jerusalem that he was not perceived by the Jews living there as trying to start his own religion, but rather as a liberator from the "Byzantinian" Christian Rulers. So it seems that Mohammed had initially intended not to start his own religion but to promote a Judaism for non-Jews in reaction to the fallenness of Christianity.
The rise of Islam then had the impact of reducing the centers for Christianity from 4 to one and cutting off Christian Europe from the rest of the world, starting the Dark Ages. Thus, from an open point of view, much of the historical developments of Christianity(including the institutionalization of Anti-semitism) can be seen as contingent developments due to the failure of its leadership. This is why I prefer to focus on the "Problem of Order" rather than Greg's Warfare Spiritual Theodicy. I started up a link under the "Lets Solve The Problem of Evil" page to explain what that means...
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Arrogance that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/14/2003 3:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Bobbie
If your teachings are truly Biblical, then there is no reason for you to feel upset, is there?
Iconoclast
This is an interesting standard. If a person is falsely accused of abusing their child and they feel upset is that somehow an indication that they ARE guilty or is it an indication that they are NOT guilty? My sense is that most people feel more upset when they are unfairly attacked than when they are given open and clear feedback with examples.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/14/2003 3:33 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW-- Thanks for the explanation.
Ironclast: Maybe I didn't word it well. I didn't mean that Greg is "guilty" of something. I really just meant that he should have the peace of mind that comes when what someone is saying is Biblical. Does that make sense? No, if a person is falsely accused and are upset, it is not an indication of them being guilty. I see your point. That's not really what I was inferring to but maybe the way I worded it made it come across that way.
"With God ALL things are possible" Matt. 19:26 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/14/2003 4:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Bobbie
"With God ALL things are possible" Matt. 19:26
Iconoclast
This verse contains the qualifier "With God". Its very formulation suggests that without God some things are NOT possible. My understanding is that at its core Open Theism is saying that people have a true choice related to being "with" God or "without" God. It seems like most Christians agree with this (hardcore Calvinists notwithstanding). Thus it may NOT be possible for God to save the rich man if the rich man chooses to be "without" God.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
| 309 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:19 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 |
|
|