 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Various Possible Implications of the Open View | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 8/11/2002 5:52 PM (GMT -6) |   | Just to help keep this thread from dying out....
Do the following beliefs/statements/postulates follow from the Open View?
1) Humans have a part of their being or psyche that can be described as "the will". This is the decision-making faculty and is the motive force behind any non-reflexive human action.
1.5) Animals (other than human) have no wills. It is one of the main factors setting us apart from them. They behave due to reflex; we act with purposes, desires, and goals in mind.
2) God also has "a will".
3) The human will is constrained in innumerable ways, although not entirely determined. God, on the other hand, has an entirely 'free' will.
4) Because God wills certain things (that all should be saved, that His children would act in love, that He be glorified), he acts on the earth to bring them about.
5) God has a sort of ‘contract’ with humans (and angels) who have some measure of ‘free’ will since they are in His image. This contract stipulates that he will not override human will.
5a) God made this contract with us out of love and the desire to receive in return love.
5a1) Only love freely given is true love.
6) When God acts on earth, either by Spirit, Messenger, or direct intervention, that information is processed by another human faculty "the intellect". The human will then uses this new information as one influence among many in its decision-making process.
7) All humans are able to process the godly information rationally. His acts do not influence the human will strongly enough to ever determine which choices they will make.
7a) Were God to do this, it would break the love contract (5-5a1).
7b) Those with deficient Intellects (e.g. children, the mentally deficient, the elderly with dementia or Alzheimer’s) who cannot process information accurately, must fall in to a different category of free-will agents. Their wills are still free (or else they are not agents and cannot be judged for eternity).
7b1) In His wisdom, God deals with such people in a way their minds can understand and respond to, so as to leave their wills free.
8) “Original sin”, if it can even be said to exist, taints neither our will nor our intellect sufficiently to determine our actions.
8a) Our own sinful tendencies, the fallen world, and the actions of demonic agents are also constrained by God, else they would determine our intellects and our wills.
8a1) God could not allow us to get “bound by sin”, or dominated by demons or else He would have created a world where the contract (5) is null.
8a2) The demon-possessed (for instance, that Jesus confronted) must still therefore retain some freedom of intellect and will.
Thoughts? Concerns about any of this?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 8/12/2002 3:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Points 8, 8a1, 8a2.
8) “Original sin”, if it can even be said to exist, taints neither our will nor our intellect sufficiently to determine our actions.
There absolutely has to be original sin. If there isn't, then there's no ground on which to stand as explanation for WHY we are the way we are. In view of this, right and wrong erode into relatism--the most barbaric expression of existance being the logical outcome.
8a1) God could not allow us to get “bound by sin”, or dominated by demons or else He would have created a world where the contract (5) is null.
8a2) The demon-possessed (for instance, that Jesus confronted) must still therefore retain some freedom of intellect and will.
Two things:
1. I don't know that the demon possessed are in control of their faculties where the possessed could say at the time of possession "I really do/do not will this." Might possession overrule the will--something God does't do but Satan does?
2. The oddity accompanying these two thoughts (8a1 and 812) is that which has been the topic of conversation on this board many times, and it's hiding in these waters: that people are possessed (and perhaps loose temporary sight and awareness of their wills during possession), why are not all non-Christians possessed? Further, why, in view of our wills and demonic activity, are not ALL killed by Satan (who are not on God's side) or at least equally afflicted, if it is Satan who's doing it all the time?
The questions aren't presented to be answered, necessarily, as they are to color Terry's last post; I believe these points affect our concept of God's interaction in this world, the concept of man's free will, (particularly when it might or might not be eclipsed by possession), and our concept of the open view. (The open view to me, however, is still reasonably simple to grasp in terms of its theological content, and isn't the major tool to explain the seemingly inconsistancies of both God and Satan's actions on this earth.)
For 8a1 and 8a2!
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 08/12/2002 09:05:18 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/13/2002 7:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Some things...
1. Tom is completely right about this statement:
quote:
Seems to me, Mephi, that you want to be honest with people about the implication that the open view involves us in having to come to terms with gratuitous evil, the fallout of God’s decision to make his involvement in our world dependent upon human cooperation (and all the crap that happens to people because we don’t cooperate, and all the crap that happens to people even when we cooperate) [Meph's addition: all that crap that happens even when GOD fully cooperates), all the suffering that occurs even after we’ve cried and prayed our guts out for a specific situation, etc., etc.
I want to be able to present people who want to evaluate the open view with any and all implications that emerge. Just like I would with any other theological view.
***********************************************
2. Tom says:
quote:
To me, all the above is infinitely more preferable than the implications of any of the alternatives to the open view.
This is subjective, right? The reason I say that is simply because I think that some people can deal existentially with certain implications rather than others. For those who want to affirm human freedom primarily above God controlling absolutely everything exhaustively, of course the implications of open view are preferable. For those who hate the thought of gratuitous evil existing, they may rather everything be under EDF. But guess what I think? Because of my views, I could give a care either way. Theological determinism plain doesn't bother me. So, the implications of it don't bother me either. But that doesn't hold with some others. At any rate, what I'm trying to say is that it is possible that some people who have different existential concerns than you may find other theological views more palatable.
***********************************************
3. Tom says:
quote:
Of the implications that you believe follow from the open view, do you think any of them suggest the open view should not be believed in? If not, then I don’t see how making sure others are fully aware of these implications has anything to do at all with convincing people whether or not the open view is right.
and...
quote:
But assuming that we want to embrace the most biblically plausible, philosophically reasonable, and existentially livable worldview possible, I think the open view offers the best implications on the market. Don't you think so?
I hope it becomes apparent that I'm not dealing with people being as OBJECTIVE and rational as possible, looking at all the evidence in tandem. Nor am I dealing with people trying to find the "right" answer. I'm dealing with people rejecting implications that the find EXISTENTIALLY ANXIETY-PROMOTING. Uh huh.
***********************************************
4. Tom said:
quote:
I guess what I’m trying to say is that it IS possible to come to a well-studied conviction that the open view is correct without having hammered out a full-fledged theodicy or even come to terms with all the issues. How do I know? Because I’m an example.
Of course, it's possible, Tom. I'm not arguing for that. I'm arguing that--bottom line--SOME people aren't going to like the full implications of open view theism and PRIMARILY ON THAT BASIS will refuse to accept it.
***********************************************
5. Tom said:
quote:
"Possibilities are real and the future doesn’t exist yet"--Is it really the case that all that you’re discussing is entailed in this simple belief?
I genuinely think so. When Doc has the time, I think I could convincingly show this.
Holla back,
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/13/2002 7:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Sup, Terry. Good to see you, too. 
Terry said (emphasis mine):
quote:
Because he doesn’t do this in all cases doesn’t have to be interpreted as weakness on God’s part. He could simply have chosen not to do whatever it took because it wasn’t part of His sovereign plan. It doesn’t thrill me to think that X event or death wasn’t terribly important to God, but as his piece of pottery, I accept it. And yes, my depiction is close to a Calvinistic view (but not identical to it!).
Terry, were you here when Doc and I discussed a concept called the "glorification idea"? In the lead-in and brunt of that whole thing we dealt with this issue quite a bit. About God NOT CHOOSING to do whatever it took because is was another part of his plan. Perhaps I can find that thread and activate it.
**************************************
Terry:
quote:
If God is all powerful and only limits Himself (on your view) at the point of actually changing someone’s “will”, AND if He is all wise and knows what it will take to change a heart, AND he is infinitely creative and very longsuffering….the free “will” zone must be asymptotically small, statistically and praxically insignificant. If you want to carve out a theoretical or merely philosophical room for free “will”, I suppose it’s there. But so what? I would argue that even if the zone exists as you describe it (which I doubt), it has never come in to play. If God wants X to occur, X occurs, micromanagement be damned.
Hmmm. See, this is the problem. One of the major points about acknowledging this crawlspace in which chaos theory works is the explanatory power it provides about WHY God doesn't do more than he does. Why there is SO MUCH evil. Because of Gods influential, though not COERCIVE, power. Once you minimize the crawlspace to veritable compatibilism and coercive power that God can exercise BY SIMPLE FIAT...then you have the hardcore problem of evil all over again. This seems clear from S&PE. In short, the ability for God's will to be thwarted in the "allowed free will zone" HAS to be significant or it really doesn't matter. Ain't that right?
*********************************** | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 8/13/2002 1:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Free will! (Huh!) What is it good for? Absolutely (huh!) nothing!
Mephi: Terry, were you here when Doc and I discussed a concept called the "glorification idea"?
Terry: Yes, I was ‘here’ (except there’s no here, here. Oy! Such a headache I’m having!). I agreed with where you took that thread, and since you can defend yourself fairly well, I didn’t step in. We’re simpatico on that issue, I believe.
quote:
See, this is the problem. One of the major points about acknowledging this crawlspace in which chaos theory works is the explanatory power it provides about WHY God doesn't do more than he does. Why there is SO MUCH evil. Because of Gods influential, though not COERCIVE, power. Once you minimize the crawlspace to veritable compatibilism and coercive power that God can exercise BY SIMPLE FIAT...then you have the hardcore problem of evil all over again.
Terry: Well said. A few thoughts:
The main example was “regardless of how bad God wants it to come about.” Now, aside from the issue of God having degrees of desire, if God really wants X to occur, he has proven capable of making X occur and I think my description is accurate. With power, wisdom, patience, and creativity, what God promises (or something he wants really badly) he is able to perform (Ro 4:1).
Re: the redhead. If God wanted him to give the money, why not give him dreams about the money, bring people in his path to encourage his giving, why not have an angel appear with resounding trumpets? If he still resists the angelic testimony, make his arms not work until he gives the money (a la John the Baptist’s dad). Maybe have a ghostly hand write on the wall MENE MENE $150 UPHARSIN for good measure. Given that God knows exactly what all your hot buttons are, how can the chances of resisting all this Godly pressure be anything but “asymptotically small, statistically and praxically insignificant”?
In fact the only example I can think of where someone resisted the miraculous intervention of God is Pharaoh, who had his heart hardened for him by that same God so that judgment would come to Egypt and freedom to the Jews.
But, is there an “undetermined zone” of things where God doesn’t go to these lengths? I think so. “Blessed are those who haven’t seen and yet believe”; mutatis mutandis, blessed are those who haven’t had angelic appearances and are still cough up 150 dinero. As part of our proving grounds and growth opportunity, God remains as ‘merely an influence’ in many things. But God does seem to be willing to intervene and even change the rules of reality by simple fiat.
It’s that ‘undetermined zone’ that I find most interesting. It’s not a place where our wills are free, because that concept is non-sensical to me.
I understand most of human activity as a place of relationship with others, the world, the spiritual beings, and God. Like God, humans are primarily being-in-relationship. Our souls are more or less fluid as different influences affect us (room for your chaos theory?) We are always-already God-in-us and that influence is always coercive in the sense that it is always MAKING us and fundamentally ALTERING who we are. It does at times dominate and compel us to do certain things—the very antithesis of “free will”. But we were never free (nor is God, in Doc’s sense) because we and He were always in relationship (and before us, there were 3 persons in the Trinity where the Father’s love for the Son was constraining, etc.). But because there is still a part of the whole that is “me” and a part that is the sum total of all influences, God’s making can be unmade. And, even when God decrees something to happen, it usually isn’t him creating ex nihilo a new reality but Him working in relationship.
But all this is taking the thread far afield from where you wanted to go, isn’t it?
You wanted to argue that (a) possibilities are real and (b) the future doesn’t exist yet. Can I say “sometimes yes” to (a) and “God can make the future the way He wants it, but usually doesn’t” to (b)?
Terry
“Be God’s”
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/22/2002 5:08 AM (GMT -6) | | AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAlrighty, then!
Terry said (bolded emphases mine):
quote:
The main example was “regardless of how bad God wants it to come about.” Now, aside from the issue of God having degrees of desire, if God really wants X to occur, he has proven capable of making X occur and I think my description is accurate. With power, wisdom, patience, and creativity, what God promises (or something he wants really badly) he is able to perform (Ro 4:1).
Re: the redhead. If God wanted him to give the money, why not give him dreams about the money, bring people in his path to encourage his giving, why not have an angel appear with resounding trumpets? If he still resists the angelic testimony, make his arms not work until he gives the money (a la John the Baptist’s dad). Maybe have a ghostly hand write on the wall MENE MENE $150 UPHARSIN for good measure. Given that God knows exactly what all your hot buttons are, how can the chances of resisting all this Godly pressure be anything but “asymptotically small, statistically and praxically insignificant”?
In fact the only example I can think of where someone resisted the miraculous intervention of God is Pharaoh, who had his heart hardened for him by that same God so that judgment would come to Egypt and freedom to the Jews.
But, is there an “undetermined zone” of things where God doesn’t go to these lengths? I think so. “Blessed are those who haven’t seen and yet believe”; mutatis mutandis, blessed are those who haven’t had angelic appearances and are still cough up 150 dinero. As part of our proving grounds and growth opportunity, God remains as ‘merely an influence’ in many things. But God does seem to be willing to intervene and even change the rules of reality by simple fiat.
Ok. This will assume that you've read (either in God At War or on this board) about the little girl Zosia. The one who got both of her eyes dug out from Nazis.
1) Could God have done something to save that little girl's life (some potentially slight event) by way of divine action...if he REALLY wanted to?
2) If yes to #1, because God DIDN'T spare Zosia when he GENUINELY could have, would a reasonable person have warranat to say that, given #1, God OBVIOUSLY didn't WANT to save her?
3) If NO to #1, doesn't this contradict what you've said above?
4) Do you feel that maybe God had a GREATER GOOD in mind by allowing her death...ANY type of greater good?
Yeah. This'll do to start.
Holla back, dude,
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/24/2002 8:41 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 8/25/2002 4:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph,
Busy taking care of baby and mommy. I'll try to get back to you today too. I actually have to work today (bleh, on Sunday).
Peace out,
T-dog. 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/25/2002 7:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi
One) Could God have done something to save that little girl's life (some potentially slight event) by way of divine action...if he REALLY wanted to?
Two) If yes to #1, because God DIDN'T spare Zosia when he GENUINELY could have, would a reasonable person have warrant to say that, given #1, God OBVIOUSLY didn't WANT to save her?
Three) If NO to #1, doesn't this contradict what you've said above?
four) Do you feel that maybe God had a GREATER GOOD in mind by allowing her death...ANY type of greater good?
Iconoclast
One) Yes.
Two) No. Could I save my child from skinning his knee on a bicycle if I REALLY want to? Yes. Does the fact that I allow my child to ride a bicycle and skin his knee mean that I didn’t WANT to keep my child from having a skinned knee? No.
Imagine if you had the power to protect your child from every bump or scrape that they could possibly get. Would you use it? If you did, what would happen to them?
Orson Scott Card played this thought out in a story he wrote. It was a novel about a civilization where all the people were supernaturally protected from any harm coming to them by a higher civilization. He showed very clearly how this process really dulled life to the point of near meaninglessness. The end result was that the “lower” civilization ended up rejecting this mode of existence for a more “real” one. It was a powerful story.
And if you had the power which you chose not to use (totally out of love), and your child knew that you had the power and that you chose not to use it in some specific instance, how would they feel?
Four) Yes. The GREATER GOOD is Love. Freely chosen, triune love. There is no other way to get it than to allow its “meaning” to unfold. If God protected Zosia then He would have prevented the meaning of the Nazi guard’s action to unfold. One hypothesis that would explain the specific greater good God was after here is to presume that God wants the Nazi guard to fully experience the full terrible meaning of his actions in order to convict him and bring him into God’s triune love. Impossible? What about Saul? God allowed Saul to kill Christians right and left and then God convicted Saul, showing him the terrible meaning of his actions. And it worked. Saul, the greatest Christian killer, became one of God’s most powerful servants.
But what about Zosia? Surely we can come up with an hypothesis there that shows the full power and wonder of God’s love for Zosia. For instance, what about Stephen? Wouldn’t we presume that Stephen, who was murdered because he was proclaiming the word of God, received more joy because of that act? Don’t we presume, don’t we aspire to that kind of sacrifice? For what? For joy. That your joy may be complete. There is deep, deep meaning and joy in laying down your life for another. So, can we not hypothesize that Zosia in some measure laid down her life in order to help that Nazi guard see the full and terrible meaning of his actions? And if we cannot see that, is it possible that God could help Zosia see that, in fact, that is what she did. No, not as clearly volitional as Stephen, yet as one of God’s beautiful children who lovingly and innocently shared her life and gave her life. And in this hypothesis if God is confident that Zosia will indeed see this great gift she has given and fully experience it as deep, deep meaning and joy, would He take this away from her?
I think what has Kingdom value, what will be powerfully meaningful to us in Heaven is very obscured to us here on earth because we see everything so strongly through our own filter of good and evil.
My experience is that often my most painful and difficult experiences have led to the deepest meaning and joy in my life but only when I interpret them from the perspective that I am already OK and will continue to be OK because God loves me.
Deep meaning / Joy is not happiness. It is the most powerful feelings / experiences we have, both positive and negative, all mixed together. It is Joy because it points to God while at the same time presupposing God in its center.
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 | | |
|
timlings
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130
| Posted 8/26/2002 1:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey there
I've been away for the last 2 weeks on a cool kids camp, which was ace. So I've kinda missed most of the discussion. but here's my answer anyway.
mephi:
quote:
Here's my problem. How can it be "trusting" in the truest sense...rather than just hoping? We've already ascertained that God is FULLY loving towards us and that God does the most that God can do. But the issue becomes...CAN God do it?
But isn't hope really important too? Don't we have the trio of faith, hope and love? And maybe trusting and hoping are very much intertwined. Perhaps we trust in what God's like, and put our hope in him for what he's going to do in the future?
Your lunch metaphor is good. I think that we are meant to trust in God's willingness and ability to help us. But I think that with God, his timing is different to our clock-time impatience. If God promises lunch, then we will eventually get it. But maybe not when it's most convenient for us. And God does get caught up along the way, like with Daniel praying for 3 weeks until he gets an answer. God gave his answer immediately, but it took a big fight in the heavenlies to get it delivered.
mephi:
quote:
But what about the events in CREATION? What about the free willed beings that might mess things up? I can only HOPE that those things are ok enough for God to do what I am TRUSTING him to do. See what I'm saying?
I think I get what you are saying. But I think that ultimately those obstacles can be overcome by God. Just like with the D-day landings in WWII. Hitler was beaten, but it took a lot of fighting to actually finish him off. The final result was never in doubt [something like 500 million v 5 million], but on the small scale, there were setbacks.
quote:
What does "win in the end" mean? And how does it deal with individual existential suffering? Just wondering.
Satan under Jesus' feet. Resurrection of the dead. Heaven. All wrongs righted. That sort of thing. Like in the end of Revelation.
mephi:
quote:
Just wondering. On what basis do you disagree with it? I'm pretty sure that this is genuinely possible. This goes along with the idea of radical gratuitous evil. Can you give me some reasons why you disagree?
Maybe I do agree actually. In England a couple of decades ago there was an amazing Christian leader called David Watson. Used amazingly, and doing great stuff. Then he got cancer. Loads of people prayed for him, including the likes of Jim Wembers [the Vineyard guy]. And it looked like stuff was happening to him. But he still died in end. Now maybe God was thwarted by free-willed spiritual powers. So in the short term God couldn't do his stuff. But on a bigger time-scale, God will and has used what was inteded for evil for good.
I think that's enough from me.
love
Tim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/26/2002 3:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Icon,
First of all, REALLY cool stuff 
You said no to my #2, but I think that you may have misunderstood what I was saying. You essentially used the free will argument on the Zosia event (with a bit of Doc's triune love thing)...which is cool. But, as I've stated in other posts, the fact remains that God obviously wanted something else MORE THAN merely Zosia's survival to occur, if what Terry believes about divine agency is true. Sticking with your example about the skinned knee. What you have to end up saying is that you value allowing your daughter the freedom to ride her bike MORE than you do the probability of her skinning her knee. In other words, the knowledge that she COULD skin her knee is an acceptable risk to you. You don't WANT it to happen, but you know that it could. But what were to happen if for some odd reason you just didn't want ANY CHANCE of your daughter skinning her knee via bike-ride that day? Then you have the POWER to make sure that she wouldn't...because you had such power. Now taking this back to Zosia. My point is simply that if God really had a HUGE UNCTION to save Zosia...given Terry's idea of divine agency...there are ANY NUMBER of things that He could done to save her. [Notice that this does NOT have to be extended to ALL people at ALL times. Just HER. Clearly, the God attested to in the Bible preserved SOME people in the midst of imminent calamity for divine purposes, yes?] So, by ALLOWING (or perhaps ordaining?) the Nazi guard to dig out her eyes in front of her mother like that, God would effectly be saying that Zosia's gruesome death was 1)an ACCEPTABLE risk to God that could possibly be a 2) Greater good event.
Bottom line, though. God prioritized something else HIGHER THAN the preservation of Zosia's life that day.
Next, you give some plausible "greater good" ideas that God could have been applying with Zosia's death. But there's some interesting things...
1) Just because God WANTED the Nazi to experience the full terrible meaning of his actions doesn't mean that he DID or WOULD. God was taking a risk...one that COULD HAVE fallen through. (Recall my RADICAL gratuitous evil idea.)
2) This is a horrid event that you have plausibly construed as a "greater good" event...and asserted accordingly that only on the OTHER SIDE of Heaven may things make sense. How is this ESSENTIALLY different from what Calvinists would say? Not very.
3) A HUGE ambiguity is now placed before us. If what you posit could be true in Zosia's terrible case, then what about individual deaths in Auschwitz? Or My Lai? Or Beijing? Or the World Trade Center? Sure, we can ALWAYS work against evil by default...but I don't see how we could CONSISTENTLY try to attribute ALL occurances of pain, suffering, and death to the "works of the devil" except in the VERY ULTIMATE SENSE that supposedly evil EMERGED from things not God. The PARTICULAR instance of "evil" remains an absolute mystery in many cases.
And about God "not allowing the meaning to unfold" for oppressors Why didn't God allow the meaning to unfold about the king throwing the Hebrew boys into the fire? Why didn't God allow the meaning to unfold about Daniel being eaten by lions? What about people TODAY who claim to have been saved from disaster by "angels"? Do you get what I'm saying? Once we say that it is POSSIBLE that God can wish to NOT allow this meaning to unfold for SOME people, then one is left wondering "Hey, why not ME?"
I believe that Modes recognizes the issue like I do. Once you give God sufficient unilateral power to do things (moving AWAY from simple process theology), the ETHICAL question about God's actions raises itself. Why did God heal THIS little girl but let THAT little girl die? This guy prays ALONE for some unknown source money for a bill and gets it...while this ENTIRE COMMUNITY prays for the safe return of a lost girl but DOESN'T get it. Stuff like that. The ambiguity is great..but I don't buy Doc's view necessarily. In case of horrible suffering, pain, and death, presume "Devil/human/chance until PROVEN God"...just like we presume "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" I think the best thing to do is what both open view theists AND Calvinists end up doing..just what YOU did, Icon. Posit a greater good that we will NOT understand in this life that is currently ONLY KNOWN to God and trust that God is doing what he will and knows what God's doing.
Just my thoughts. Good to hear from ya, Icon. Say hey to the "better half"!
Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/26/2002 10:39:39 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/26/2002 3:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Appreciate the response, Tim. Glad you enjoyed that camp, too.
quote:
In England a couple of decades ago there was an amazing Christian leader called David Watson. Used amazingly, and doing great stuff. Then he got cancer. Loads of people prayed for him, including the likes of Jim Wembers [the Vineyard guy]. And it looked like stuff was happening to him. But he still died in end. Now maybe God was thwarted by free-willed spiritual powers. So in the short term God couldn't do his stuff. But on a bigger time-scale, God will and has used what was inteded for evil for good.
Sweet stuff. And this is exactly the type of stuff I'm talking about. Doesn't it bother you that LOADS of people can be praying for something that God HIMSELF really wants to do, but some demons can thwart it? Doesn't that give you some issue with God's supposed exalted POWER that certain Christians try to claim for the here and now to be a PRESENT help? Praying turns into being a shot in the dark that MAY have benefits or may not. And we don't even have the "comfort" of "KNOWING" that God was really in control of that PARTICULAR situation. We end up looking at the sweet bye-and-bye for everything to be reconciled. That helps to LESSEN the anxiety, sure. But it sure doesn't seem to help one's trust in the power of prayer the NEXT TIME PRAYER IS NEEDED, now would it?
Preciate the comments,
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 8/26/2002 5:05 AM (GMT -6) | | MEPH:quote:
2) This is a horrid event that you have plausibly construed as a "greater good" event...and asserted accordingly that only on the OTHER SIDE of Heaven may things make sense. How is this ESSENTIALLY different from what Calvinists would say about ALL evil? Not very much.
3) A HUGE ambiguity is now placed before us. If what you posit could be true in Zosia's terrible case, then what about individual deaths in Auschwitz? Or My Lai? Or Beijing? Or the World Trade Center? Sure, we can ALWAYS work against evil by default...but I don't see how we could CONSISTENTLY try to attribute ALL occurances of pain, suffering, and death to the "works of the devil" except in the VERY ULTIMATE SENSE that supposedly evil EMERGED from things not God. The PARTICULAR instance of "evil" remains an absolute mystery in many cases.
And about God "not allowing the meaning to unfold." Why didn't God allow the meaning to unfold about the king throwing the Hebrew boys into the fire? Why didn't God allow the meaning to unfold about Daniel being eaten by lions? What about people TODAY who claim to have been saved from disaster by "angels"? Do you get what I'm saying? Once we say that it is POSSIBLE that God can wish to NOT allow this meaning to unfold for SOME people, then one is left wondering "Hey, why not ME?"
I believe that Modes recognizes the issue like I do. Once you give God sufficient unilateral power to do things (moving AWAY from simple process theology), the ETHICAL question about God's actions raises itself. Why did God heal THIS little girl but let THAT little girl die? This guy prays ALONE for some unknown source money for a bill and gets it...while this ENTIRE COMMUNITY prays for the safe return of a lost girl but DOESN'T get it. Stuff like that. The ambiguity is great..but I don't buy Doc's view necessarily. In case of horrible suffering, pain, and death, presume "Devil/human/chance until PROVEN God"...just like we presume "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" I think the best thing to do is what both open view theists AND Calvinists end up doing..just what YOU did, Icon. Posit a greater good that we will NOT understand in this life that is currently ONLY KNOWN to God and trust that God is doing what he will and knows what God's doing.
I've been mulling this over since the beginning of this thread, because as I defend the open view in my head, I am confronted with just this problem: If we grant that God has PARTLY settled the future through his unilateral will, I think we may lose the ethical and philosophical advantage that we claim over Calvinist-types, because as Meph points out, both views are then forced to trust in a mysterious "greater good" that we cannot understand.
Doc never really addresses the ethical question that is raised by a partly-settled future in "God of the Possible."
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 8/26/2002 5:17 AM (GMT -6) | | 1) Could God have done something if he REALLY wanted to?
Yes.
2) Would a person have warrant to say that God didn't WANT to save her?
No. There are degrees of want or competing desires.
I didn’t want Clinton to get elected. It’s possible I could have done something to stop it, all the way up to assassinating him. I didn’t kill him. Does that mean I somehow DID WANT him to get elected? There were simply other considerations and conflicting/competing influences.
It does mean that saving Zosia and stopping Clinton weren’t the highest priorities in their respective cases.
3) Pass, since I said yes.
4) Do you feel that maybe God had a GREATER GOOD in mind by allowing her death.
That probably wouldn’t be the terminology I’d pick, but ok.
As a general rule, I try not to argue using Nazi Germany as an example because the connotations are true strong. I’ve also seen Hitler used as a trump-card example in waaaay too many high-school debates.
So let me change the example. Let’s say God allowed: a loving father’s personal assets to be wiped out (the man was rich but always used his wealth to bless the poor and needy), allowed his large beloved family to be killed gratuitously in obviously supernatural ways, allowed all his employees—some of whom were friends—to be killed the same day, in obviously supernatural ways. And, oh yeah, then the man himself gets afflicted with some tortuous diseases. He’s also got a shrew of a wife that doesn’t give him a lick of comfort, and a couple of mostly useless friends that want to philosophize with him about how he deserved all this when, in fact, he was one of the most Godly people around.
Let’s also premise that God knew about this activity in advance, and in fact personally approved it. God set the boundaries on what could be done to the man (no killing of the man himself), but explicitly allowed all the other crud.
Finally, let’s also premise that God, for one of the few times in history, actually chooses to defend His actions personally? And what is this logical defense? “Shut up, dude. I’m God.”
Is that man’s lot in life worse than Zosia’s? I think so—although it’s a bit morbid to categorize tragedies.
Let’s go back to the questions: could God have stopped it? Obviously, yes. In fact, Satan got permission beforehand to do what he did to Job. Did God not want to save Job? It’s hard to tell. God seems quite callous through the whole thing, although He does set parameters and return more than what was lost to the sufferer. Any greater good to be had there? I can’t tell you how many times I’ve said along with Job “even if he slay me, I will hope in Him.” So his example and words comfort me. Beyond that, I am convinced there could be numerous ‘higher purposes’ or ‘greater goods’ of which I’m unaware.
To my peanut-sized mind, killing the kids is ‘crossing the line’. To use that most dangerous of phrases “IF I WERE GOD I WOULD” not have allowed it. But God is God and, fortunately, I’m not.
Reminds me of my favorite part of _Lord of the Rings_? (Okay, second favorite part after seeing Legolas kick butt.) when Frodo wants to kill Gollum. He certainly “deserved” death, ethically. Gandalf points out instead that mercy is always our first role and responsibility because we are not qualified to mete out death. Who knows if Gollum was brought in to the world for such a time as this, a la Esther?
We’re so finite, we don’t know whom God wants to redeem down the road, or how He’s orchestrating the actions of an evil person. I lost my job recently, and an absolute waste of flesh and downright mean person in my area kept hers. I’m comforted to know that God allows me to scream at Him. That He’ll wrap me in His powerful arms while I beat on his chest and say “You are so mean! Don’t you understand I have a sick wife and a new baby?!?”
Oh, and then my basement floods because the water main breaks in my new house and I have to spend $2600--that I don’t have--ruining my front yard to fix it. And insurance won’t replace anything I lost from the water damage?
But He hasn’t slain me yet, and I’m still using my breath to praise Him.
Is it spiritual warfare? Maybe. Is it a chance to humble myself and receive financial help from the church? Could be that too. Maybe my negligent mother-in-law needed to be forced to help care for her daughter and grandson while we didn’t have water for a week. Frankly, as wise as I pretend to be, I’d be foolish to try to figure it all out.
What to do instead? I ask people to pray (and some actually do). I hope for the dawn.
I do believe God doesn’t want us homeless, so that’s comfort. I don’t believe my mom giving “seed money” to Kenneth Copeland will act like spiritual warfare and obligate God to give me a thousand-fold return.
Some people are comforted in blaming the prince of the power of the air and evil forces in high places. I’m sure they’re real. But the God I see in the Bible is able to brush them aside like toothpicks. And if He doesn’t in my case? When I get to heaven, I’ll have an interesting conversation with Him and have a cup of coffee with Job. In the meantime, I am chasing after God with all my might (and contemplating poverty as a spiritual virtue).
Sorry if this isn’t responsive, Meph.
Typing through tears,
Terry
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/26/2002 5:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Terry,
First of all, your response WAS indeed responsive. Deeply touching, as well. Thanks a bunch. Second, I want you to know that I am definitively thinking about you and yours, and praying for your situation to get better. Perhaps, in the end, I can honestly say that, however things turn out, God loves you and so do I. Hang in there, brother.
With you in the Spirit of travail,
Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.
--Romans 12:15
Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/26/2002 10:37:08 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/26/2002 5:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Brett (emphases mine):
quote:
I've been mulling this over since the beginning of this thread, because as I defend the open view in my head, I am confronted with just this problem: If we grant that God has PARTLY settled the future through his unilateral will, I think we may lose the ethical and philosophical advantage that we claim over Calvinist-types, because as Meph points out, both views are then forced to trust in a mysterious "greater good" that we cannot understand.
EXACTLY, Brett! And think about existential anxiety-lifting. At least strict Calvinists can say consistently that EVERY BIT OF EVIL that occurs (no matter how nefarious) DEFINITELY has a "greater good" reasoning behind it that God ONLY knows about that makes all types of sense on the other side of Heaven. No bit of suffering is for nothing. The sacrifice is the open view sense of human freedom...and ONLY the conception of divine love that presupposes it. (I say this because I do believe that there CAN be an idea of love within a compatibilistic framework...easy)
But open view theists not only have to say that this SAME IDEA exists in their schema (ie that God can orchestrate and allow horrors for divine purposes)...but they ALSO have to say that particularGRATUITOUS EVILS that served NO DIVINE PURPOSE (and subsequently, meaning) can occur. Even more, they have admit that some gratuitous evil can be RADICALLY gratuitous in that God himself cannot end up bringing any much good out of the "evil" situation that he may have initiated, perhaps inadvertenly making things WORSE. But hey, they get to keep their sense of human freedom intact.
AND both positions end up saying the same things in the largest sense ANYWAY (ie that because of God's "greater good" intentions, it's all "worth it" overall)!
It's no wonder that some people would choose Calvinism, place faith in the "great mosaic" God put together, and live with it's counterintuitive nature that may offend our sense of human freedom...rather than deal with some of the VERY scary ramifications of open view theism.
Thanks, Brett.
Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/26/2002 11:05:34 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 8/26/2002 11:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Brother Meph,
Say, I can't recall what, if anything, has been said about the idea that perhaps there are simply rules of engagement, so to speak; rules which to our understanding, based on what we observe, aren't solvable logistically within our human limitations because we can't see both sides of the game: the human and spiritual sides of the issue.
We get hints of these possible rules when we see Job, for instance. No specific rule is alluded to, but that there is negotiation between Satan and God is a hint in and of itself. Is it possible that God has restricted Himself by these rules (human freedom being the principle reason for the rules) so that in some cases He cannot act (in accordance with or without prayer) and in other cases He can't--and I believe when all is said and done that God does "allow" anything that happens, since He is, after all, God? Perhaps God has so only so many trump cards to play. He then is to ultimately decide who will and who will not get blessed or have their prayer answered, so to speak. And obviously the greater good would be the thrust behind it all.
This wouldn't take away my confidence in His ability to rescue me or meet my needs, because there seems to be this "replenishment" of trump cards insuring my guarded future. Prayer somehow is involved with this replenishment, but I must ultimately succumb to the fact that I am called to worship Him regardless of what does or does not happen to me here on earth. He is to be served because He's God, not because I understand Him or why He does or doesn't do this or that for me. This concept (of worshiping Him just because He's God) has flowed tremendous freedom into my life when my life has had disturbances that I surely had wished God would have prevented or miraculously fixed.
Anyway, just thinking about this.
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/26/2002 4:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Terry, I am really sorry to hear about what you and yours are going through. You are in my thoughts and prayers. One passage I found helpful in troubled times is Psalm 37:1-4. In my anger I focused on verses 1 and 2. I then gained security in verse 3. And ultimately I found comfort and then joy in verse 4.
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 8/26/2002 7:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi
Bottom line, though. God prioritized something else HIGHER THAN the preservation of Zosia's life that day.
Iconoclast
Yes. Great post Meph. We are on the same page here. Well said, although we would have to dialogue much more to sort out what you mean by questioning whether this could mean that God “ordains” this evil. I think we would both agree that God never WANTS evil to occur. Just like we never WANT our kid to skin their knee. I think we would also agree that God sometimes commands what WE would call evil – like the genocide of the Canaanites.
Mephi
It's no wonder that some people would choose Calvinism, place faith in the "great mosaic" God put together, and live with it's counterintuitive nature that may offend our sense of human freedom...rather than deal with some of the VERY scary ramifications of open view theism.
Iconoclast
Yes, I see that Calvinism is a convenient belief system that has a set of advantages. And I agree that opening oneself up to the Open View causes some discomfort. However, to me this is like choosing to stick with Newtonian physics even though certain facts do not fit that system. Newtonian physics cannot deal with Brownian motion or the constancy of the speed of light. One needs quantum mechanics and relativity theory to cope with these phenomenon. And yes, even Einstein refused to accept the now mostly settled view of the meaning of quantum mechanics.
If we had stuck with Newtonian physics then we would only have had a couple of minor problems – Brownian motion and the speed of light. We would never have even known what we were missing. We would never have discovered all the incredible insights and new phenomenon that were only intelligible (and therefore could come before our consciousness) through quantum theory and relativity theory.
(I think it was Lord Kelvin who said that almost all of physics was understood. That once the minor nagging problems of Brownian motion and the speed of light were solved that all the laws of physics would be known to us. Oops.)
A Calvinist will only see some minor discomforts – some minor inconveniences by sticking with Calvinism. However, this will prevent them from becoming part of and growing into a whole new set of concepts and understanding that the Open View engenders.
Mephi
EXACTLY, Brett! And think about existential anxiety-lifting.
Iconoclast
Existential anxiety-lifting is not necessarily a good thing. Doubt drives thought to create belief. When belief is secured doubt stops and we are comfortable. However, belief drives behavior. To settle on a belief – a model of the world that drives and affords behavior – is very important; however, if we get stuck on this belief and don’t allow some doubt then we become rigid in our behavior and are not able to adjust and incorporate new facts.
Our ability to love others is directly related to the beliefs that we settle on. If we are not open to new beliefs, if we do not allow ourselves the discomfort of doubt then we do not grow. Faith is acting on our beliefs even though we know they are not accurate but only an approximation.
Mephi
At least strict Calvinists can say consistently that EVERY BIT OF EVIL that occurs (no matter how nefarious) DEFINITELY has a "greater good" reasoning behind it that God ONLY knows about that makes all types of sense on the other side of Heaven. No bit of suffering is for nothing. The sacrifice is the open view sense of human freedom...and ONLY the conception of divine love that presupposes it.
Iconoclast
Open View folks can say exactly the same thing. I won’t go into why except to point you to Charles Sanders Peirce’s essay on “The Doctrine of Chance”. The nature of chance and probability is very poorly understood in the theological world and just about everywhere else as well. You can find this essay in the book “Chance, Love and Logic – Philosophical Essays”. I highly recommend this. I would also highly recommend his essays on “The Fixation of Belief” and “How to Make Our Ideas Clear”.
Mephi
But open view theists not only have to say that this SAME IDEA exists in their schema (ie that God can orchestrate and allow horrors for divine purposes)...but they ALSO have to say that particular GRATUITOUS EVILS that served NO DIVINE PURPOSE (and subsequently, meaning) can occur. Even more, they have admit that some gratuitous evil can be RADICALLY gratuitous in that God himself cannot end up bringing any much good out of the "evil" situation that he may have initiated, perhaps inadvertenly making things WORSE. But hey, they get to keep their sense of human freedom intact.
Iconoclast
No. Absolutely Not. Denied. Peirce’s “Doctrine of Chance” blows this away. You would like it. Peirce is the father (or at least a key contributor) of symbolic logic. His stuff is sound.
In short, there are two errors here. Error #1 is treating any specific situation in a nominalist fashion. You are denying the reality of generals (laws, dispositions, probability spaces) when you don’t actually believe this – else you wouldn’t act as though you believe in gravity. Error #2 is that you are presupposing that meaning can only occur through predetermined intent. That meaning ONLY happens causally. This is false. Meaning UNFOLDS after the fact. Meaning is determined after the fact by which “interpretants” (from the field of interpretants) are chosen. We naturally do this all the time – it is how we function. It is how symbolic logic functions. When we go through a process of grief we are going through a process of changing the “interpretants” that we are using to understand the situation. Each change in interpretant brings about a shift in meaning – sometimes subtle, sometimes dramatic. To deny this is to deny the potter analogy. It is to deny that God has the power to create new meaning AFTER THE FACT. Because God can create meaning after the fact, meaning is NOT strictly bound and therefore determined by any individual free will. (David Bohm also outlines the nature of meaning in his book “Unfolding Meaning”)
Thus “but they ALSO have to say that particular GRATUITOUS EVILS that served NO DIVINE PURPOSE (and subsequently, meaning) can occur” is DENIED.
Also - the sacrifice is not only the open view sense of human freedom, it is also the open view sense of responsibility and its concomitant motivation and therefore passion towards loving action, including prayer. Action that leads to deeper and more meaningful relationships and therefore joy. Basically I am asserting in the strongest way possible that confused beliefs directly lead to unpassionate and ineffective action. Whenever a concept is confused – and the concept of responsibility is REALLY confused in Calvinist thought then confused action follows – it cannot be otherwise.
I would go further to say that the Open View is a necessary platform similar to quantum mechanics that allows for new phenomenon to be understood – specifically how it is that the knowledge of good and evil blocks love. I don’t think you can get there from Calvinism. In fact, I don’t think Calvinist thought can even see that there is a fundamental problem with judgement – that judgement is the essence of our fallen nature. I think Calvinist thought totally misses the meaning of Jesus encounter with the Pharisees.
In doing a bit of quick research on Calvinist doctrine I came across the following words written in defense of Calvinism by C.H. Spurgeon:
“I suppose there are some persons whose minds naturally incline towards the doctrine of free-will. I can only say that mine inclines as naturally towards the doctrines of sovereign grace. Sometimes, when I see some of the worst characters in the street, I feel as if my heart must burst forth in tears of gratitude that God has never let me act as they have done!”
I nearly fell over. And this guy went on and on like this. Does he not know the verse about the Pharisee who says this and the sinner who beat his chest asking for mercy?!?! Or can he just not process this concept through the Calvinist world-view? Is this typical?
Loving the exchange.
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 | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/27/2002 10:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Icon:
quote:
Well said, although we would have to dialogue much more to sort out what you mean by questioning whether this could mean that God "ordains" this evil. I think we would both agree that God never WANTS evil to occur. Just like we never WANT our kid to skin their knee.
When I say that God "ordains" this evil, I am basically speaking of such as MEANS, not ENDS. Perhaps this is the problem that many people are having. Whenever God "ordains" evil, it's not just for the sake of evil to exist. It's always for a "greater good" reason. So, I would say that God would never want evil to occur JUST FOR EVIL'S SAKE. Here, we deal with the prioritization factor.
**************************************
Icon:
quote:
I think we would also agree that God sometimes commands what WE would call evil -- like the genocide of the Canaanites.
Oh, most definitely!
**************************************
Icon:
quote:
Existential anxiety-lifting is not necessarily a good thing. Doubt drives thought to create belief. When belief is secured doubt stops and we are comfortable. However, belief drives behavior. To settle on a belief – a model of the world that drives and affords behavior – is very important; however, if we get stuck on this belief and don’t allow some doubt then we become rigid in our behavior and are not able to adjust and incorporate new facts.
Ah, yes! This goes back to the discussion that I had with Modes about the appropriate places of commitment, humility, and honesty. It is quite important, I believe, that we never retreat into dogmatism just to secure any given type of praxis. Of course, commitment is needed to provide foundation for action, but once this commitment is such that no other further analysis or synthesis of new information is even desired, we are well on our way to dogmatism and zealotry of some type. However, as you well know, human beings are suprarational (at times, utterly IRrational), which means that, sometimes, the pursuit of comfort and security may short-circuit the possible need for change. Happens all the time.
**************************************
Icon:
quote:
Faith is acting on our beliefs even though we know they are not accurate but only an approximation.
Man, I LOVE this description of faith! Faith is NOT some type of mystical "knowing" that is certain. Faith is NOT dogmatic adherence to a belief despite much disconfirming evidence. Faith is the act of COMMITMENT to TENTATIVE beliefs that are understood to be TENTATIVE, though warranting action. VERY well said, Icon.
**************************************
Icon:
quote:
Open View folks can say exactly the same thing. I won’t go into why except to point you to Charles Sanders Peirce’s essay on "The Doctrine of Chance". The nature of chance and probability is very poorly understood in the theological world and just about everywhere else as well. You can find this essay in the book "Chance, Love and Logic -- Philosophical Essays". I highly recommend this. I would also highly recommend his essays on "The Fixation of Belief" and "How to Make Our Ideas Clear".
Hmmmm...I'll DEFINITELY read these. My point is, however, that I don't see any consistent grounds in which an open view theist can assert that EVERY PARTICULAR INSTANCE of evil is the ultimate product of exhaustively meticulous orchestation and divine intention. That goes against OVT at its base. Now, to your credit, I could see how and OVTer could make the claim that no suffering is for NOTHING...but that would not be in the way I'm talking about here.
*************************************
Icon had a problem with this:
quote:
But open view theists not only have to say that this SAME IDEA exists in their schema (ie that God can orchestrate and allow horrors for divine purposes)...but they ALSO have to say that particular GRATUITOUS EVILS that served NO DIVINE PURPOSE (and subsequently, meaning) can occur.
Ok. Cool. How about this then, Icon? I'll use some Piercean terms, too.
"but they also have to say that some particular "evil" FACTS (as opposed to EVENTS) were NOT intended to be a MAIN endpoint of any FINAL CAUSE by God. And inasmuch as this occurs, the said fact LACKS divine purpose, which entails there was no consciously-intended REASON that can be appropriated into MEANING existentially. (Note:a REASON does NOT translate to meaning necessarily, for meaning must be appropriated subjectively anyway) This means that it was not seen as a "greater good" aim by God.
Example: The horrible death of Zosia is a FACT (within at least "process") could be said to be the ULTIMATE product of the existence of "objective chance" rather than the main endpoint of any divine final cause. This endpoint was not specifically "aimed at" by God.
Now what's the difference between Calvinism and Open View, given these concepts? In
Calvinism, it would always be the case that any particular "evil" facts that emerge in reality were INTENDED to be main endpoints by divine final causality. Thus, implying that said evil fact was INTEGRALLY within the final cause of a given process such that the probability of it's occurance was brought infinitely near to 1 by God's divine agency. This would NOT be the case in open view theism.
Hence, the gratuitous evil would NOT exist at ALL in Calvinism...but WOULD exist in open view theism.
So, what do you think? Better?
***********************************************
Icon:
quote:
Also - the sacrifice is not only the open view sense of human freedom, it is also the open view sense of responsibility and its concomitant motivation and therefore passion towards loving action, including prayer. Action that leads to deeper and more meaningful relationships and therefore joy. Basically I am asserting in the strongest way possible that confused beliefs directly lead to unpassionate and ineffective action. Whenever a concept is confused – and the concept of responsibility is REALLY confused in Calvinist thought then confused action follows – it cannot be otherwise.
The problem that I have, Icon, is that theological determinism is often misconceived just like open view theism is. Because many people generally don't think out the implications of it, they make mistakes. For the record, I believe that anyone who seriously believes that Calvinism necessarily entails fatalism is slightly misunderstanding the philosophical concepts that ground compatibilism. It is COMPLETELY possible to show how a sense of responsibility and motivation can exist within an exhaustively THEOLOGICAL (as opposed to strict) deterministic framework. Phenomenologically, both OVT and Calvinism work out the same. The crucial difference lies in ontological differentiation in the highest metaphysical level (meaning the mind of God). THAT'S ALL! Whereas in Calvinism, the distinction between God and creation (speaking of actions) would be FORMAL where God wouldn't experience novelty in CREATION (though God could experience it in Godself!)....in open view theism, the distinction between the two would be such that GOD experienced geniune novelty in Creation.
But I ask, so what?
Does it end up mattering one hill of beans to anyone that God experiences novelty from Creation? What if God could give a rip about it? Really. We, in consistent anthropocentric fashion, try to make God like US (at least, to me.) Because WE believe that life without novelty in our environments is boring, we ASSUME it must be so for God. Not necessarily so, y'all. Especially when Doc has so ELOQUENTLY shown in Trinity and Process that God doesn't NEED Creation to experience ever-increasing levels of enjoyment from Godself!
Gettting back at the subject, I assert that REASONABLY PRESENTED theological determinism in Christianity can provide the basis for healthy Christian praxis. Sho' nuff.
[Digression: Theological determinism need NOT imply a interventionist, supernaturalistic worldview. Not at all. ]
*************************************
Icon:
quote:
I would go further to say that the Open View is a necessary platform similar to quantum mechanics that allows for new phenomenon to be understood : specifically how it is that the knowledge of good and evil blocks love. I don’t think you can get there from Calvinism. In fact, I don’t think Calvinist thought can even see that there is a fundamental problem with judgement – that judgement is the essence of our fallen nature. I think Calvinist thought totally misses the meaning of Jesus encounter with the Pharisees.
I don't see how Calvinist theology precludes the insights of Bonhoeffer. I really don't. And as far as what Spurgeon said, I don't have more of the context, but I will venture to say something anyway. I would agree that his statement was grossly ladened with judgment. Almost a dead ringer for the Pharisee. However, I would not say that the Calvinist worldview is to blame for this. Not at all.
'Preciate the dialogue, yo.
Lovin' it,
Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/27/2002 3:36:38 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 8/27/2002 11:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Great thoughts as usual, Iconoclast and Mephi. Thanks for the work.
My time is short, so let me ask a quick question: Does open view theism need a "partly" settled future? To me--as I said above--granting that God has indeed even PARTLY settled the future seems to raise the problem of evil that we find in more deterministic views. Yes? So if we are truly going to characterize God as omnibenevolent (even including the "glory" variable that Meph articulated when we discussed this before), are we not forced to say that the future is entirely open in some sense? (Which would of course raise some serious exegetical and existential angst).
I may be totally missing the boat here, but I'm sure your responses will help.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/27/2002 11:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Heard in a Macy's department store elevator:
"Calvinist Strawman Maniquines... third floor on your right... just past the G. I. Joes."
So much for CSMs.
Brett writes (He is on to something!):
quote:
My time is short, so let me ask a quick question: Does open view theism need a "partly" settled future? To me--as I said above--granting that God has indeed even PARTLY settled the future seems to raise the problem of evil that we find in more deterministic views. Yes? So if we are truly going to characterize God as omnibenevolent (even including the "glory" variable that Meph articulated when we discussed this before), are we not forced to say that the future is entirely open in some sense? (Which would of course raise some serious exegetical and existential angst).
I may be totally missing the boat here, but I'm sure your responses will help.
Brett
The view that God creates, and then just runs around fixing small glitches is deficient!
Back to the CSMs on Macy's Third Floor. (Just past the G.I. Joes.) Do these fit your preconceptions of what a Calvinist is? Look closely at all three submissions to a Reformed magazine with a high-level readership:
quote:
"Two Gray Cats" and the Doctrine of Election
I have been a subscriber to Reformed Worship since the first issue and have always appreciated the many ideas and perspectives in the magazine. I was very disturbed therefore to read the poem 'Two Gray Cats" (RW 63, p. 21) in the article "A Classic TULIP Bouquet." This poem is a horrible example of the doctrine of election and was a poor choice for a magazine whose primary focus is on corporate worship. Fatalism does not belong in a magazine such as this. The Christian Reformed Church denominational publication The Banner had an excellent article on this topic in the Dec. 31, 2001, issue. As Rev. Timmer states in the article "Election Is a Story," "the Bible does not say that God chooses only a few people and rejects most people." And "the greatest abuse of the biblical teaching of election occurs when we divorce election from the mission of the elect." This poem is an embarrassment to an otherwise quality publication and I am extremely disappointed in the editorial staff for including it in the article.
Jill Friend
Boone, Iowa
--------------------------
I am a bit puzzled by the poem "Two Gray Cats" (RW 63, p. 21). I suppose the most natural way to read the poem is as a parable of election, since that is the theme of the article. The point of the parable then is that two needy sinners came to God seeking salvation. God let one through and kicked the other away. Is this the message you are encouraging us to communicate to the congregation assembled for worship?
This is not a theoretical question; I have already had one member of the congregation ask if this poem represents the Reformed understanding of election. Do you think it does? I hope not, but then I wonder why it is included in an article about Reformed theology.
Thomas J. Niehof, pastor
Trinity Christian Reformed Church
Ames, Iowa
Editorial comment: The poem certainly does not represent a Reformed view of the doctrine of election; it was included as an example of how many Christians, including Chad Walsh, are baffled by a doctrine that could make God seem so arbitrary. In retrospect, we should have been clearer about the poem's purpose and should have placed it within the section "Election is baffling" rather than at the end of the sermon notes after the final section, "Election is balm," which included the statement "Calvin saw election as a doctrine that provides deep comfort and assurance. . . . For those who have accepted Jesus, there are no worries for eternity." —ERB
I THINK THAT THE THREE WITNESSES FROM CALVINISTS (ABOVE) REJECT THE REPRESENTATION BEING MADE OF CALVINISM ON THIS WEBPAGE!!!
. . . . . . . .
This is the last day of my Sale on "anti-antiCalvinist rants." Buy now while the supply is good. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/27/2002 3:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Al
I THINK THAT THE THREE WITNESSES FROM CALVINISTS (ABOVE) REJECT THE REPRESENTATION BEING MADE OF CALVINISM ON THIS WEBPAGE!!!
Iconoclast
Yes, and many Catholics tell me that the Catholic church doesn't really ban birth control as every Catholic they know practices it all the time.
Isn't it interesting that the people who live under this "belief" that birth control is wrong do not actually practice it and therefore rationalize how it doesn't REALLY exist - at least not in the way someone looking in from the outside would perceive it based on the written words of the Catholic church. How is this different from the written words of the Calvinist doctrine of election?
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 08/27/2002 8:46:40 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/27/2002 3:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Al
"Calvin saw election as a doctrine that provides deep comfort and assurance. . . . For those who have accepted Jesus, there are no worries for eternity." - ERB
Iconoclast
Perhaps I am just totally unschooled in how Calvin actually meant this doctrine of election. Actually, I am sure that I am.
Al - is it your understanding that what Calvin was really saying is simply that once we accept Jesus then we are placed in a body that is CORPORATELY elect?
If so, then how in the world does that negate libertarian free will in the slightest? It is simply saying what Doc has said all along that the doctrine of elect refers to the CORPORATELY elect. There is a body that is elect - if you join (out of free will) then you are assured of salvation, if you do not join then you will not be saved.
If not, then what is wrong with the poem about the two cats? God arbitrarily (as far as we can tell - it has nothing to do with our choices) chooses who is elect and who is not - just like the two cats.
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 | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/27/2002 3:55 PM (GMT -6) | | BJS:
quote:
My time is short, so let me ask a quick question: Does open view theism need a "partly" settled future? To me--as I said above--granting that God has indeed even PARTLY settled the future seems to raise the problem of evil that we find in more deterministic views. Yes? So if we are truly going to characterize God as omnibenevolent (even including the "glory" variable that Meph articulated when we discussed this before), are we not forced to say that the future is entirely open in some sense? (Which would of course raise some serious exegetical and existential angst).
Ok. If when you are talking about a "'partly' settled future", you mean a future PARTICULAR, HISTORICAL EVENT about reality supposedly being predetermined by God such that God will make absolutely sure that it WILL occur, then yes, open view theism IMPLIES the idea. Why? Because what you are talking about deals with God having sufficient unilateral power to do such a thing...and open view theism proposes that God has such level of unilateral power.
The alternative would be to be full blown process theists...for whom, God's power is always persuasive and NEVER significant enough to be considered "unilateral" in our world. [Note: Perhaps the only exception would be in the VERY, VERY beginning of Creation with the "creation out of absolute chaos" idea.] Process theology, I think, would end up being "entirely open" as you may be thinking of the term. But, like with process theology, there would be DEEP questions about how God could do any of the things the Bible attributes to God as significant unilateral action...like you seem to indicate.
In short, the "openness of the future" question is ALWAYS truly tied to the ideas of "divine providence" and "divine agency" Can't be helped.
Hope this helps,
Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/27/2002 8:57:58 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 78 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:07 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 |
|
|