 |
| 
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/17/2003 3:49 PM (GMT -6) |   | Thanks Mayflower. Now to get some sleep. As soon as "Without a Trace" is over. 
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/17/2003 4:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Bobbie
So are you then thus saying that if a person truly understands Open Theism, then they would surely embrace it? That is what I hear.
Iconoclast
No. There are many reasons why someone may understand something and still refuse to embrace it. Who wants to dig in their garden with a backhoe? Open Theism like calculus is a useful model for dealing with certain issues or “problems”. It is only a model. It is a map – it is not the actual territory. It is a certain kind of map that helps to navigate certain terrain. Specifically it is a very useful model for dealing with the question of why an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God (one who has ultimate and total control) allows evil to befall his beloved creatures. Calvinism is a model that says since God is in total control knowing and even predestining ALL that ever happens it must be his perfect will that we suffer horrible evil at the hands of evil men. People who believe this to be true of God tend to have a difficult time feeling loved by God and therefore feeling much love for God when something terrible happens to them. I saw a documentary about how people who lost loved ones in the 9/11 terrorist attack felt betrayed by God asking themselves how God could have let this happen – or even worse – why God chose to do this to them and their loved ones. Calvinists who want to protect God’s reputation started suggesting that it was really God’s judgement on America – that we have become bad and that therefore God punished us as a nation. Open Theists respond by saying that God did not cause this to happen – it was the terrorists. Yes, God gave the terrorist the ability to do this by giving them the good and beautiful gift of free-will but it was totally and completely the terrorist misusing this gift against God’s will that did this.
I was making several points with the analogy. One of them is that it is very clear to a person who understands the Open View when someone else does not. Their refusal to embrace it is not of course evidence that they do not understand it.
Bobbie
I mean, God's Word is not "calculus". You know, not everyone can handle calculus and that's not how God is. His Word and His salvation are simple enough for even a "dumb" person to understand!
Iconoclast
I agree. His word and His salvation are simple enough even for a child to understand – implicitly. Children easily understand and believe that God totally loves them even when bad things happen to them. They also tend to reciprocate that love. Jesus even said that we need to come to Him like these little children. Children also understand very complex physics implicitly. The trajectory a ball makes when it is thrown to a child is actually quite difficult to describe mathematically, yet a child can easily predict where the ball will end up. Open Theism is the explicit logic that we all implicitly use in our day to day actions. We all presume that we have true possibilities confronting us and that we are responsible for our choices – that, in fact, our choices have real consequences for ourselves and for others. God’s plan for salvation is very easy to understand. The nature of the reality that God has constructed is more complicated. Open Theism’s basic premise has to do NOT with whether God is omniscient or not – He clearly is – but rather with what the nature of the future really is. Open Theism simply makes explicit our implicit understanding (as shown by our behavior) that the future is not fully pre-determined. That right here and right now we all have a real choice in front of us – the choice to do God’s will and the choice to go against God’s will with all the attendant consequences. Calvinism denies this implicit truth that we all act out of. A logical consequence of this ability to go against God’s will is that God has delegated some of His total control to us – at least enough to allow to go against His will. That is, He loves us so much that He is willing to take a chance on us going against His will and hurting ourselves and other people in order that we may come to actually choose to love God - For Love Must Be Chosen.
Bobbie
Wow, that is a pretty strong statement. First of all... Open Theism is going to help me solve complex problems? How hard is God making Himself here?
Iconoclast
God makes it very easy. He has told us explicitly that He loves us. He even proved it by dying on a cross for us. Unfortunately we tend to make it very hard on ourselves because when something bad happens to us we often tend to implicitly blame God for it. No one needs to understand Open Theism if they totally and completely believe that no matter what happens to them that God totally loves them. The reason Open Theism is helpful is because when bad things happen to us we tend to start losing our confidence that God really loves us. Our presumption is that since God is in total control then He should be able to keep bad things from happening to us and that if He doesn’t then He must not love us.
Thus, the complex problem that Open Theism helps us to solve is one of our own making. Calvinism is a really great example of a problem of our own making. God tells us that He loves us even though we are sinners. Jesus proved it by saying “forgive them for they know not what they do” about the very people who were at that moment crucifying Him on a cross. Calvinism says that God predestined specific people to be saved and predestined specific people to burn in Hell – before they were even born. Open Theism is simply the explicit logic for why this is unbiblical and therefore totally false.
Bobbie
If I grasp God via Open Theism, it will be like calculus where I will grasp difficult equations, etc? It will be like blinders off my eyes where I will say, "Wow, all my life I've been stuck in algebra and now I am free because calculus (Open Theism) has made me free from a lowly life in algebra." Don't you see something wrong with that??
Iconoclast
Yes, I do see something wrong with this. This is not what I meant the analogy to communicate. Algebra is a perfectly fine model for dealing with algebraic problems. If we believe God totally loves us even when bad things happen to us and act responsibly (“response able” – which presumes that the future is open) then we don’t need calculus (Open Theism). Seems to me that we only need the explicit logic of Open Theism when our thinking and therefore our emotions are conflicted with the belief that God doesn’t really love us because He is either allowing or causing evil to befall us.
Bobbie
Sorry to be so sarcastic, but you really are telling me that I don't understand because if I did, then I would be an Open Theist just like you. You are telling me my life is really not all it can be because I am working with a backhoe and I am down there in algebra... when I could be using a shovel and up there in Calculus. In other words, I could be a blessed Open Theist.
Iconoclast
This is not at all what I was intending to communicate. I apologize for saying it wrong.
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 | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/17/2003 4:30 PM (GMT -6) | | John Earp
As a major theme of the open view is human choice, and love cannot be forced, it cannot follow that universalism is true.
Iconoclast
My understanding is that a universalist who accepts the fact that love must be chosen and cannot be forced would deal with this by saying that God will continue to pursue everyone throughout eternity until they finally see the error of their way and turn and choose to love God. The universalist (I think) would further have to say that for this to not violate the supposition that love cannot be forced that they simply believe that over time (they have a LOT of it in their view) ALL people will HAPPEN to freely choose to love God. It seems to me that a universalist would have to disbelieve in the idea of character solidification - or - at least in the wrong direction.
In this way the two views can be compatible.
Personally, I find it unlikely that this is actually the case although it would sure be great if it is. I tend to believe in the idea of character solidification. My very limited experience suggests that people tend to get set in their way even more over time rather than less. I really like the way C.S. Lewis portrayed this in his book "The Great Divorce".
In terms of what the Bible has to say on this subject Empiress makes a very impressive scriptural case for universalism. Her case is very well scripturally researched with strong and articulate arguments.
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
Edited by - Iconoclast on 04/17/2003 9:35:12 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/18/2003 4:32 AM (GMT -6) | | TOM
quote:
TGB
PoW. ... your note caught my eye.
You said: "As the NIV gies it to us, I see the root of this as being: 'Perhaps ... Then I will relent' THOSE TWO BOOKENDS FIT TOGETHER VERY NICELY."
Yes, they fit fine. But the two clauses, the "perhaps" and the consequent "then I will relent," are friggin connected! It's simple English my friend. "I will relent" is c-o-n-t-i-n-g-e-n-t upon their listening. "If A happens then B will happen" does not mean B will happen whether or not A happens. B is as contingent as A is. If A, then certainly B. If no A, then (in this case) certainly no B.
Tom
Tom: But the two clauses, the "perhaps" and the consequent "then I will relent," are friggin connected! It's simple English my friend.
PoW: THANKS FOR CATCHING MY POINT, TOM. 
The other point, that goes with it, is this: that IT IS "KING-SPEAK." The connectedness is also part of a rhetorical delivery, spoken from the aura of a KING speaking (Michkelson's coments on that passage above.) Its FORMAL LANGUAGE.
But I'm guessing that you agree with me on that part too.
PoW
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/18/2003 09:38:33 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/18/2003 4:36 AM (GMT -6) | | honorman: POW, if I misread you, I apologize, but I still think your words could be tightened.
PoW: Constructive criticism welcomed. Thanks.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/18/2003 09:39:24 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/18/2003 7:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Now that was pitiful, PoW. Smooth, but characteristically disingenuous of you.
Those who have known you long via this forum know how rediculous you sound here. The more you talk the more settled an open theist I become. Yeah, sure, PoW, I agree with you on Jer. 26 and the King-speak stuff. Riiiight.
1. I didn't "see" your point, except to see that it was poor theology and poor English grammar.
2. Your Court-language explanation is desperate. Lose it.
Much later,
TGB
Edited by - TGB on 04/18/2003 2:50:18 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/18/2003 11:37 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Now that was pitiful, PoW. Smooth, but characteristically disingenuous of you.
Those who have known you long via this forum know how rediculous you sound here. The more you talk the more settled an open theist I become. Yeah, sure, PoW, I agree with you on Jer. 26 and the King-speak stuff. Riiiight.
1. I didn't "see" your point, except to see that it was poor theology and poor English grammar.
2. Your Court-language explanation is desperate. Lose it.
Much later,
TGB
Edited by - TGB on 04/18/2003 2:50:18 PM
ADIAPHORA, TALK TO TOM. PLEASE.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/18/2003 12:08 PM (GMT -6) | | I simply DIDN'T appreciate Tom's post.
But here is a point by point handling of it, and a review of what I'd posted previously.
- Jer. 26 and the King-speak stuff.
1. A. Berkley Mickelson's (Mickelson has been Bethel Seminary's Professor of New Testament Interpretation) 1963 "Interpreting the Bible" says what follows SPECIFICALLY OF JER. 26:
quote:
This basic formula, too, has many variationr These are: "thus says Jehovah, the God of Israel;" "thus sav Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews," "thus says Jehovah f Hosts; ... In context these formulae introduce solemn utterances on the part of God to his people. ... one main purpose which is to impress upon the hearers of the prophet's message the fact that they are being confronted with the declaration of God." ... it has behind it the cove-Inan God of Israel ... of God's claim upon his people and ^"r position under the authority of God.
2. Tarazi is the other source. His provision of the cultural setting of much of scripture is also useful. Here is a bit of it:
quote:
When one combines these two features, then one understands how any reality was a court reality: it was either a lawsuit or a verdict. This is precisely how one finds the prophetic literature cast, with few exceptions. Indeed, the divine words reflect the court background: God is either the judge or the prosecutor or the plaintiff. The rest of the Bible was woven on the basis of and around the prophetic teachings. The Pentateuch is cast as the story of God first judging Pharaoh and delivering his people; then bringing this same people before his mountain throne where he proclaims his law by which he will judge them during their sojourn around his cities of Jerusalem or Samaria. In their turn, the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings are replete with passages where the people or the kings fall under God’s judgment and verdict. Thus, in the Bible whenever God is the subject of the story -- and he always is -- then he is the judge. By the same token, all the biblical events actually take place in his forum, "before his eyes," and not "out there," as we have grown accustomed to think.
("Time and the Signs of the End", http://www.svots.edu/Events/Orthodox-Education-Day/Articles/1999-Fr-Paul-Tarazi.html)
3. What I responded to was from the early part of this thread was the reading-into-the-text of a contemporary cultural viewpoint, the assumption that God was "spilling his soul" (or something like that). Specifically, THIS defines what I challenged (and it was Tom's):
quote:
Tom: In Jeremiah 26.3, God says, “Perhaps they will listen and each will turn from his evil way. Then I will relent and not bring on them the disaster I was planning because of the evil they have done.” Let’s forget the “relent” for now. Let’s talk instead about the opening word “perhaps.” It’s a simple word ('ulay) that means exactly what you’d expect “perhaps” to mean (“peradventure,” “maybe,” “may,” etc.). The clause it introduces describes a “contingency” (something that might or might not happen). God says, “Perhaps (i.e., ‘maybe’ or ‘possibly’) Israel will listen” to me this time. Bobbie, you tell me what you think it means for God (your all-knowing God, the God who can’t know possibilities, who can’t speak of the future as what “may” perhaps be) to declare that Israel “may” (perhaps, might) listen to him this time. Is it or is it not true that when God said this he believed that Israel "might listen to him"?
THE POINT: Tom is HALF right, it does "describe a “contingency” (something that might or might not happen); but that only needs to be a "contingency for the 'King's' subjects. (IT DOES HAVE TO BE A FREE ACT--WHICH I HOPE ALL AGREE ON!!!) The FORMAL quality of the rhetoric, of between unequals is important here. As a Father disciplining his children, here, I'd not expect God to be "buddy-buddy" here.
- I didn't "see" your point, except to see that it was poor theology
I think that you did. We agree on some:
PoW: "I see the root of this as being: 'Perhaps ... Then I will relent' THOSE TWO BOOKENDS FIT TOGETHER VERY NICELY."
Tom: But the two clauses, the "perhaps" and the consequent "then I will relent," are friggin connected! It's simple English my friend.
- Your Court-language explanation is desperate.
My "court language" thang -- I now like the phrase "KING-SPEAK" -- is just fine. The "Open" arguement is so flimsy: it merely states that the implications of weakness on the "King's" part are unavoidable. I don't think that the Jer. passage tries to present all-knowing-ness. But is certainly isn't motivated by the opposite.
quote:
AGGGHHHHH..... How about we stick to IDEAS???
Greg
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/18/2003 5:11:49 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/18/2003 12:52 PM (GMT -6) | | To John Earp: Thanks for the clarification. But Mayflower was right in pointing out that my gripe was not so much with your individual comment (though I did disagree with it) but with the guilt by association silliness that yanked her and atheists into the discussion in the first place.
To John Earp again: I do not think that universalism and panentheism are LOGICALLY incompatible with Open Theism, though I think they are incompatible ON OTHER GROUNDS. RE: Universalism, for example, one could hold that God grants humans just enough freedom to resist him for such and such a duration, but not so much that they can't ULTIMATELY be won over. With Iconoclast, I wish this were true, but I don't buy this at all. Nevertheless, I don't see that its a self-contradictory position to hold.
To TGB and POW: Chill. 
To ALL: No takers on my Ezekiel 12:3 offer???? IF not, I declare myself The Winner!
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.
Edited by - GregBoyd on 04/18/2003 5:54:07 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/18/2003 3:39 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 4/18/2003 4:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Bobbie,
You still there? I hope that we'll be able to continue this discussion...
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 | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/18/2003 5:40 PM (GMT -6) | | POW: regardless of what you call the language, when you make a statement that it can be contingent (for the king's subjects) you are making an interpretation based on your own beliefs that nothing in God is contingent and therefore you are making a judgment based on your own belief system and not on what the text says. Regardless of whether it is king speak or whatever, God makes a statement about what he may or may not do, just as a king would in such a situation, and in the text it is "perhaps." There is nothing within the text that even implies what you are saying, and calling it "king speak" does nothing but obscure the argument. There is nothing about the contingency of humans, only about what God may or may not do, based what humans may do. You can hold that argument if you wish, but that is not what the text says.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/18/2003 9:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc, I will try to chill. The easiest way I’ve found to do that with respect to PoW is not to read his posts and never to respond. Should have stuck to that policy this time. Sorry.
PoW, Mickelson’s comments don’t help make sense of the claim that God said “perhaps” but didn’t believe “perhaps.” You and I don’t agree. We both may claim that the two bookends fit, but this is hardly significant. Everybody believes they fit. But that doesn’t amount to agreement on the issue. You say something is blue and I say it’s green. You think we share some important point of agreement because we both see “color.” Big deal. In fact I don’t agree that what you’re seeing is color. Your view is, to me, incoherent. But what’s even more important, I’m not interested in hearing you explain it and want each of us to pretend the other isn't there. I hope to show that we DON’T agree and then you, as always, will have your last word.
The “point,” you said, PoW, was that I was only half right, that God’s statement only has to be contingent for the King’s subjects. Finally…something we disagree on!
My points have always been: A) If it’s not contingent for God, it’s not contingent, period. There IS no half right on this. Jeremiah and we may think Israel’s listening is contingent, but if God doesn’t believe it’s contingent, then it’s not contingent. God is always correct in what he believes a thing to be. B) The grammar of “If A happens, then B will happen” cannot be understood to support your claim that we can correctly understand A to be contingent while correctly understanding God to believe B (the consequent of A) to be certain.
Furthermore, C) believing the human element to be contingent requires believing the divine element to be contingent if the human element is to be meaningful. That is, for US to relate meaningfully to A, WE have to believe (incorrectly on your count) that B is contingent. Even IF, by some strange calculus, you could come up with a coherent argument for believing God knows A to be contingent for us but knows B is not contingent in “If A happens, then B will happen,” LIFE would require us to believe this was not true. OUR believing A to be contingent (and living in accord with this) requires us to believe that A and B are both ontologically contingent for God, for we are incapble of believing that B's being dependant upon the contingency A does not entail B's being AS CONTINGENT AS A. What you believe cannot be applied to life. You cannot demonstrate its truth.
The "formal quality of the rhetoric" here is entirely beside the point. Nor do my points have anything to do with God “spilling his guts” or being “buddy-buddy” with us. It has everything to do with God’s being honest, the nature of truth, the integrity of personal relationship, and the requirements of meaning.
If you want to believe your “KING-SPEAK” thing “is just fine,” great! Then we can go on ignoring each other’s posts entirely, which is what I wish would happen anyway. You think the open argument is “flimsy" and that "it merely states that the implications of weakness on the King's part are unavoidable." Fine. I’m truly happy that you have found what you believe to be the truth on these matters.
My experience is that unless you get the last word in on disputes of this nature the posts go on indefinitely; so in the interests of bringing this conversation to the quickest possible end I'll concede you the last word. I won't be reading it, but you can post it nonetheless.
TGB
Edited by - TGB on 04/19/2003 12:31:54 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/19/2003 9:04 AM (GMT -6) | | "Jesus on Final Judgment," or "Why I Can't Believe Universalism"
Matt. 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ 40And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,£ you did it to me.’ 41Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ 45Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (NRSV)
The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world. Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/19/2003 10:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Bobby,
I stepped in when Tom and Icon persistently asked the same question -- one based on presumption that it 'had' to be answered. What I proved was that the Jeremiah passage makes NO implication that their view is necessarily true. The Jeremiah passage does NOT overtly imply that God is revealing lack of knowledge. (It's not making any point about knowledge.) It shows us a king speaking to his subject about a contingency within the power of the subject's control. (This answers honorman.) Tom wrote that formula; and its to a degree it was complet. "A" leads to "b." (Thought the 'math' breaks down if God persists in being merciful even if after failure!)
Honorman, you wrote: "based on your own beliefs that nothing in God is contingent". "WITHIN" God I would not accept anything being "contingent." But I do recognize God changing his judgement. But not "God changing"!!!
Honorman, you wrote also: "God makes a statement about what he may or may not do, just as a king would in such a situation, and in the text it is 'perhaps.' There is nothing within the text that even implies what you are saying". you might be imagining some of what you think that I'm saying. (Refer to the limits of what I open this post with.)
Finally, honorman, you also write: "There is nothing about the contingency of humans, only about what God may or may not do, based what humans may do." Seems to me that the "contingency of humans" (what they do or don't do--by my definition) IS the subject about which the KING kingly says about what He "may or may not do, based what humans may do." It is for purpose of that rhetorical exchange that the Jeremiah passage comes about. (Don't you agree?)
I'm just saying that that fully explains the passage.
--------------
Tom. LIGHTEN UP!!!!
Tom: Mickelson’s comments don’t help make sense of the claim that God said “perhaps” but didn’t believe “perhaps.”
Pow: I don't say that they do!!!!!!!! I'm playing defense, and not offense here. I'm NOT trying to use that passage to proove ANYTHING about the completeness of God's knowledge. (ONLY YOU AND ICON WERE. ONLY YOU.) I merely had to prove that the passage DOESN'T HAVE TO say anything about knowledge to still be a reasonable rhetorical exchange. I DID THAT. And I now rest my full, complete case.
*Sits down.*
(Tom says he isn't listening.)
But Tom said one other thing that I agree with: "The 'formal quality of the rhetoric' here is entirely beside the point." With respect to the arguments that "Openness" theorizers preport for the Jeremiah passage, that it is "entirely beside the point." I THINK SO TO!!!!! But as to the 'formal quality of the rhetoric' being part of the communications inherent in the passage and God's message for his people...then it is fully and intrinsically a part of the point. So says Mickelson.
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802847811/qid=1050784759/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-1188599-0423021?v=glance&s=books
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802847811/ref=lib_dp_TFCV/103-1188599-0423021?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader#reader-link
So, I hope that this takes you "off the hook", Bobby!!!
PoW
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/19/2003 3:52:35 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/19/2003 3:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey POW! I agree with your comments. I just haven't felt like arguing in here lately. But I'll be back. 
Besides, Greg already said it all: "I DECLARE MYSELF THE WINNER." That lil' ol' statement right there speaks volumes...
Happy Easter!
"With God ALL things are possible" Matt. 19:26 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/19/2003 3:54 PM (GMT -6) | | POW said: "The Jeremiah passage does NOT overtly imply that God is revealing lack of knowledge. (It's not making any point about knowledge.) It shows us a king speaking to his subject about a contingency within the power of the subject's control."
BOBBIE says: I totally hear ya Brother! I completely agree with you and to be honest, when I first looked at that passage (after taking up the challenge given by Tom), I thought to myself, "Duh... it is so clear!" I figured I was in a bad spot being as I'm not an intellectual theologian type person, but even for a simpleton like me ... well, it's really not that hard to see that God is talking to Jeremiah!!!! He is not having a conversation with Himself!! Why is that so difficult to see or accept? I don't get it. No offense to the intelligence of any open theist who sees it differently, but I really don't see the thing about God saying "Hmmmm... perhaps they'll listen. I wonder. I mean, I really have no clue if they will or not... 'cause you know, I just can't and don't know all things. Hey, they don't call me God for nothin'!" Pleeeeeaaaaseeeee!! UGH!! Why on earth would I worship, praise, adore, revere, and submit myself to a God like that!? No thanks!!
"With God ALL things are possible" Matt. 19:26 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/19/2003 6:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc
In some ways, an even better illustration of God thinking and speaking in terms of "maybes" and "Perhaps" is Ezek 12:3. God commands Ezekiel to enact a bizzare prophecy encouraging him, "Perhaps they will understand, though they are a rebellious house."
Most interestingly, the people do not understand.
IF God motivated Ezekiel to enact this prophecy knowing (let alone determining) that the people would not understand, how was he NOT being deceitful in telling Ezekiel that perhaps they WOULD understand? Is this not lying? If God has someone do something on the grounds that PERHAPS people will understand, does this not imply that there is the POSSIBILITY that they WILL understand? Does it not imply, in other words, that its not CERTAIN they will NOT understand? But if God foreknows (let alone predetermines) that people will NOT understand, there obviously is no genuine possibility that they will understand... hence no truthfulness to God saying, "perhaps they will understand."
Iconoclast
POW, help us out on this one. It seems to me that there are two possibilities:
1. There is a true possibility that the people WILL understand and God does not know FOR SURE whether they will or they won’t.
2. God foreknows (or predetermines) that the people will not understand. If this is true then isn’t God encouraging Ezekial by lying to him? I don’t see how your supposition of “King Speak” addresses this. Is it OK for the King to lie to the people in order to encourage them to do something? Wouldn't this show a severe weakness on God’s part if He has to resort to lying to someone to get them to do something?
Also, POW, do you hold to theological determinism or simple foreknowledge?
Bobbie
Besides, Greg already said it all: "I DECLARE MYSELF THE WINNER." That lil' ol' statement right there speaks volumes...
Iconoclast
Greg actually said:
quote:
To ALL: No takers on my Ezekiel 12:3 offer???? IF not, I declare myself The Winner!
I hear Greg playfully bringing to our attention that we are in a debate (win-lose) rather than a dialogue (search for truth). Seems to me his goal here is to influence the discussion more toward the dialogue end of the spectrum. But hey, how much fun is that? We wouldn't get to poke each other in the eye nearly as often.
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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/19/2003 8:12 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Bobbie: Besides, Greg already said it all: "I DECLARE MYSELF THE WINNER." That lil' ol' statement right there speaks volumes...
Iconoclast: I hear Greg playfully bringing to our attention that we are in a debate (win-lose) rather than a dialogue (search for truth). Seems to me his goal here is to influence the discussion more toward the dialogue end of the spectrum.
Iconoclast-
Oh no, don't correct Bobbie. LET her believe we are implacably intolerant of other views and incapable of dialogue, then she may give up believing there is any point or enjoyment in further talking to us and...
TGB
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/19/2003 8:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Pow: And I now rest my full, complete case.
Tom: So you're finished talking?
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 04/20/2003 01:40:38 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/19/2003 8:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Bobbie: from your attitude sounds like you already declared YOURSELF the winner. Instead of making rude comments about the God of open theism (why would I want to worship a god like that? No thanks), I would suggest you take some time going through the scriptures and ponder what it says about love...learn some humility...in the mean time, since you and POW have become such pals, why don't you do the rest of us "poor" deluded open theists a favor and head over to the little ole place Tom's set up for the two of you and you can smash around the straw man of open theism you set up all you like. That way the rest of us who are interested in open dialogue inspite of our differences can be spared your vast preconceptions...
With God all things are possible...apparently not the opening of some people's minds...
Edited by - honorman on 04/20/2003 01:25:28 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/20/2003 2:04 PM (GMT -6) | | TOM says: "Iconoclast-Oh no, don't correct Bobbie. LET her believe we are implacably intolerant of other views and incapable of dialogue..."
BOBBIE says: Just wondering why you are telling Iconclast what to do? He (she?) has yes, engaged me in debate; however, in a very non-critical way and actually, in a rather polite manner (sincerely apologizine when I found what he said to be "arrogant"). Not that I agree with Iconclast, but I do find his words to be rather mature and non-emotional/defensive. You, on the other hand, are very critical (need I point out all the times you have mentioned things like me unable to listen and POW's poor grammar skills, etc?) and obviously, very "bent-out-of-shape" due to my (and POW's) disagreement with you.
Tom, take your own advice and "LET her believe." Feel free to share your own beliefs and LET me share my own beliefs. Sure, speak out against them if you so desire, but don't call into question my character, motives, or listening/grammar skills because I feel differently than you. Now, if I start reaming you out or being totally sarcastic all the time or if I make jabs and cuts to you or others... then sure, call into question my character/motives/etc. But I don't believe I have done that.
TOM: "she may give up believing there is any point or enjoyment in further talking to us and..."
BOBBIE: Who said I found any enjoyment being here?? I know I haven't ever said that. Now Tom, don't assume things. It's always better to ask the source rather than to make a public assumption that might not be true.
Many things I have said have been simply blunt and honest beliefs of mine. Because I don't agree, does that make me rude? Or rather would it be rude if I didn't agree and then I said something like "You don't listen" or "Your grammar skills need work"? Now, that's RUDE. This is not a cut at your character but a statement based on your comments that have come across rude.
Tom, you have a quote attached to your posts that says "love never ends" but I don't find your words to be very loving.
As of yet, there are only a couple of open theists in here that seem to be truly humble, loving people. Most of the people in here are VERY offended by my disagreement with them and open theism, and have become very upset that I have dared to speak against open theism.
Take Mayflower for example. He (she?) has never engaged in this debate other than to post a couple of posts speculating on my identity and then accusing me of making a "smoke screen" when I commented on Empiress, etc. It is pretty easy to make "jabs" or assumptions at a person rather than to actually speak civilly and maturely with them.
Like I said, I agree with Tom. Stone me if you'd like, but I do. I disagree with open theism. Stone me if you'd like, but I do. I think Tom, that you have become rude and critical due to the fact that you are upset by my (and POW's) disagreeing with you. Stone me if you'd like, but I do.
I didn't come in here to stir up strife and that is one reason I am not coming in here as much anymore. I listened and came to my conclusion. Do not take it personal. You explained well, you defined things well, you (and the others) are very intelligent people which has been obvious from the beginning... your arguments were laid out very well... but open theism is not a cohesive, Biblical theology in my opinon; thus, your arguments, although presented well, have never lined up with the truths of God's Word that I am familiar with.
Thus, I have little left to say in here. I really don't have a huge desire to just come in here and argue just to argue. Thus, I don't have alot more to say now that I am firm in my belief re: open theism and now that most in here are not open to listening to the oppostion. True?
I have spent ALOT of time/energy in here and I have been convinced of many things-- that open theism is not biblical and that I need to be very discerning in what I read and listen to... I am more aware of that now. I used to always just read and take the person's words to heart, but now I am more discerning in that I want to know what they believe about God... whether it is a pastor, speaker, author, or musician.
You also should be discerning. The Bible tells us to be wise and to be discerning and to always examine the things we hear/read/etc. with God's Word. Just because one man... or two men... or even a hundred men... say something to be true does not mean we are to just "jump on the bandwagon" and believe it. We are to examine ALL things in the light of the WHOLE of God's Word. Not just a few verses, but the entirity of the Bible. Greg Boyd has stated some things he believes and I have examined those teachings in the light of the Bible and have also read the opinions of other teachers/pastors (Piper, etc) who have well-established, respectable reputations as well as fruitful ministries... and I have examined their words as well to see if they line up with the Bible. And here I am... I believe Open Theism is a false teaching.
Honorman said: "Instead of making rude comments about the God of open theism (why would I want to worship a god like that? No thanks)..."
Bobbie says: Honorman, for me to say that I don't want to worship a god like that is not rudeness. It is truth! I don't want to worship a god like that. You do not need to take this comment personallly for it is not a comment directed towards you. It is a comment directed towards open theistic teachings about God. I do not find that God of open theism to be a God that is even worthy of worship. I do not find that God to be the God of the Bible. This really has nothing to do with you, although I realize that it is a belief that you adhere to. Many in here have spoken out about the trouble they have with Calvinism or the classical view, etc... and I do not take that personally. It is not against me. It is that person's beliefs.
Honorman: you and POW have become such pals...
Bobbie: I have never met POW or interacted with him other than my recent comment stating that I agree with him.
Honorman: why don't you do the rest of us "poor" deluded open theists a favor and head over to the little ole place Tom's set up for the two of you and you can smash around the straw man of open theism you set up all you like.
Bobbie: Yes, I have been to that "little ole place" Tom "set up for the two of you". It's a great church. I do not live in MN now. If I did, I would most likely attend Bethelehem Baptist Church. But it wouldn't be for the purpose of "smashing around the straw man". It would be for the purpose of fellowshiping and learning from a man who is a very godly man who knows the Bible well and who is an excellent teacher. I do not say this to compare him to any other pastor (don't read more into it), but to say that that would be my purpose of attending there. For the record, I would not attend any church if the pastor adhered to open theistic beliefs and another reason for attending Piper's church would be because I know what he believes and I know that his beliefs are not open theistic.
Honorman: That way the rest of us who are interested in open dialogue in spite of our differences can be spared your vast preconceptions...
Bobbie: Good suggestion for me to leave Honorman, and actually I've had little desire being in here of late for I feel that I have said all I need to say and now I need to focus on other things. I really don't find great pleasure in upsetting all the open theists of the world. I am not quite that sly and sardonic.
I am definitely in the majority of those opposed to open theism and will do all I can to speak out against it with whatever opportunity God gives me. I will not completely leave here though unless I feel so led to (or G. Boyd "kicks me out" which could happen I suppose). As of late (once I saw what I did with open theism/panentheism/universalims and their shared views on God), I have felt led to leave. But my leaving will not be because you and Tom (or others) are aggravated due to things I have said opposting open theism. There is no disclaimer saying that one may only be here if one is an open theist. Thus, you may just have to put up with our comments... or ignore them... whatever you wish. You seem really upset/stressed out over what we have said and I understand, but there is not much you can do to keep us from saying the things we believe, so you might just have to live with it the best you can. Just as I "have" to live with you and your comments if I chose to enter these forums.
Honorman: With God all things are possible...apparently not the opening of some people's minds...
Bobbie: Apparantly, Honorman. Your mind seems very closed, and as well, very easily irritated and provoked.
"With God ALL things are possible" Matt. 19:26 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/20/2003 3:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Bobbie says: Just wondering why you are telling Iconclast what to do?
Tom: He owes me money.
Bobbie: Tom, take your own advice and "LET her believe."
Tom: That's exactly what I'm doing and what I suggested Icon do.
Bobbie: Who said I found any enjoyment being here? I know I haven't ever said that.
Tom: Sorry. OK, you don't enjoy being here.
Bobbie: Tom, you have a quote attached to your posts that says "love never ends" but I don't find your words to be very loving.
Tom: You're exactly right. I've been here for 2 and 1/2 years and finally hit wall folks. I'm cookoo mad, loco I tell ya. Somebody stop him! I've explained the open view to people who didn't get it or wouldn't get it, let me see...
hold on I wanna check my files...
Ah yes, 3,147 times. I've crashed. I'm in pieces. I'm done everybody. My brains are friggin FRIIIIIIIIIED!
Bobbie: As of yet, there are only a couple of open theists in here that seem to be truly humble...
Tom: You'd know.
Bobbie: Most of the people in here are VERY offended by my disagreement with them and open theism, and have become very upset that I have dared to speak against open theism.
Tom: No, we're just frustrated beyond description. See, secretly we don't wanna be open theists. We wannt come back home to determinism, but we can stand the thought that Piper and Ware will say, "We told ya so." Pray for me, Bobbie. I'm so conflicted inside.
Bobbie: Like I said, I AGREE [my caps] with Tom. Stone me if you'd like, but I do. I DISAGREE [my caps] with open theism. Stone me if you'd like, but I do.
Tom: I'm positively dizzy. When will the ride stop?
Bobbie: I think Tom, that you have become rude and critical due to the fact that you are upset by my (and POW's) disagreeing with you. Stone me if you'd like, but I do.
Tom: I'm throwing stones. Can you feel them? No, actually I'm beating myself with sticks and throwing sand in the air over my criticism of you and PoW. PoW has alwasy bested me every stinkin time we've debated. I can't take it any more and all I can do is call him names.
Bobbie: I didn't come in here to stir up strife and that is one reason I am not coming in here as much anymore.
Tom: How strife-filled would it need to be for you to decide to not come back anymore? Maybe I can help. I mean, it's totally strife-ridden for me. Totally. I mean, here I am at friggen 4 AM in the morning writing to somebody I don't even know? I'm fixing on checking out of this palce pretty soon myself, Bobbie. Let's bail out together, eh? One, two, three...jump!
Bobbie: I listened and came to my conclusion. Do not take it personal.
Tom: I really do. I'm personally offended that you didn't become an open theist.
Bobbie: You explained well...
Tom: No. No. I must have done a bad job if you weren't convinced. That's it. I'm never explaining it to anybody again. I'm reveiwing everything I believe about open theism myself.
Bobbie: I really don't have a huge desire to just come in here and argue just to argue.
Tom: I can tell ya that's no fun. Don't even try it. I mean, seriously, I've been arguing just to argue for over two years. It finally got to me. I have you and PoW to thank for helping me see the light.
Sheesh I'm really losing it here guys! I'm gonna crack wide open here in a minute.
Bobbie: You also should be discerning.
Tom: You're right. I should. I haven't been. I just plowed ahead into open theism without giving it much thought. Discerning is what I need to be.
Bobbie: Just because one man... or two men... or even a hundred men... say something to be true does not mean we are to just "jump on the bandwagon" and believe it.
Tom: Right again. Gosh you are hitting the bull's eye here in my heart with every line. I listened to MEN. I should have listen to one, two, or a hundred women. That woulda kept me on target. Too late now though. It'll take me months to crawl outta my deception.
Pray for me. I need help. Pow, you pray too, OK?
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 04/20/2003 8:12:35 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 4/20/2003 4:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Don’t give up on these guys Bobbie, POW’s been here as long as TGB, and they obviously have feelings  for one another…
Check this out
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1982
Some of my favorite parts of the above post follow, all said by John Calvin.
Providence…pertains as much to His operating hands as to His observing eyes
Divine Providence lies in the dealings of God with men as beings endowed with reason
But to take contingency out of the world altogether would be absurd
We are not here inquiring whether or not God works all the godly and holy affections which are found in the hearts of His people, because that is, beyond all dispute, certain. The great question is, whether He holds also in the hand of His power all the depraved and impious affections of the wicked, and turns them hither and thither, that they might desire to do that which He hath decreed to accomplish by their means?
"That the power of God is absolute and tyrannical," I utterly abhor
God is Love,
Tim
2Ti 2:19…Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/20/2003 5:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Tim: Don’t give up on these guys Bobbie, POW’s been here as long as TGB, and they obviously have feelings for one another…
Tom: Tim, why'd you say that? I don't need that? Don't want it. Bobbie, don't listen to Tim. Give up on me. Listen, you need to give up on me.
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
| 309 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:56 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 |
|
|