quote:

---

At the end of the day, there are only few, but important things that our Faith in Christ can give us at least relative certain that...


1) We could be certain that unchanging LOVING INTENT is ultimately the ground of all things. Circumstances aside, divine responsive love always exists.

2) God is always being "with us" and "empathizing with us"

3) God always works for the "greater good" . (We've discussed the important nuances of what this greater good includes)

4) Praying helps. It may not be completely effacacious in a given situation, but, all things considered, doing it is better than not doing it.

5) In Christ, we see the IDEAL of a God-human relationship.

6) A hope in an afterlife with God.

7) A melioristic hope (based on God's activity) that things CAN get better in this life even though they may not.

---

From what I understand there wasn't too much of a problem with this list. Would you agree? If not, what else should be added?


Let's do this. Everyone chip in!

Love ya,


Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/08/2002 1:45:29 PM

quote:

---

All that God required of human liberty since the Fall is accomplished . . . in this saving economy . . . the Wisdom of God is adapted to the fluctuations of human wills, to the different responses of men to the divine challenge. It is thus that, through the generations of the Old Testament righteous men, Wisdom "has built her house": the all-pure nature of the Holy Virgin, whereby the Word of God will become co-natural with us."

---

quote:

---

On that thread, we started getting into the idea of people rejecting the open view because of some of its not-so-popular implications. Icon suggested that my questions could be misleading. I can see his point. So, I figured I'd make a list of some of the things that I really don't think people would genuinely like about how the OV idea works out.

---

quote:

---

So... any limitations on God's providential power are actually only self-limitations

---

There's no doubt that the limitations are self-limitations. That much is stated within the view. The issue is that the limitations (significant limitations, at that) are there at all. Pragmatically speaking, it makes no difference whether God is metaphysically limited or self-limited. The outcome is still the same, with regard to providence.


*****************************************

Tim:

quote:

---

I've been thinking about the whole nature of 'trust' recently. And it seems to me that the OV makes 'trusting in the Lord' a really important thing to do. Because the future is so full of uncertainty, trusting God becomes a genuine thing, and sometimes a tricky thing. I've seen this in my life about God providing for me. As I know the future's not set, I can't know for sure that he will. But when God has provided for me, it vidicates him and shows everybody that he is who he says he is. But my trusting is part of this - it brings breakthrough in the spiritual realm and allows God to do his stuff. (like in Job)

So... whilst I would admit that things could all go really pear-shaped for me (and God), it would not be trusting for me to dwell on that possibility.

---

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? For example, let's say that I promise you that I am GOING to bring you lunch today at work. Now how do you "trust" me? Are you trusting that I am going to follow through with my intentions? If so, what is the locus of that question? Are you trusting in my ABILITY to bring you lunch...or my WILLINGNESS (as evidenced by my bringing you lunch if it's genuinely in my power)? You may say that you trust that I won't forget. Okay. Let's say that I don't forget and that I really want you to have lunch...but I've gotten into a car wreck. It's obviously not my fault that I didn't bring you lunch. Circumstances got in the way. So would you say that your trust in me was broken? Probably not. Your trust in me remains intact. Your trust in my CAR may even be intact. But you still didn't get your lunch. Next time, I make the same promise to bring you a lunch, you may be more inclined to HOPE things don't go as bad as they did last time...and that I am ALLOWED go ahead and bring you your lunch.

Same thing with God. An OVer should have NO PROBLEM "trusting" God's intentions towards them...whether it be general concern or SPECIFIC prediction by God. 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?





*****************************************

Tim:

quote:

---

3)I think that God's will can be thwarted on a small and a big scale. For example: me sinning, my friends not getting saved, Israel not entering into the promised land first time round, etc. BUT, ultimately God will get his way. As it says all over the shop in scripture. God will win in the end!

---

What does "win in the end" mean? And how does it deal with individual existential suffering? Just wondering.


*****************************************

Tim (In talking about the Y action thing):

quote:

---

Hmmm...I'm not sure I agree with this. It don't sound like the maker of heaven and earth to me. And doesn't God promise that he'll use all situations for the good of those who love him? Even if they were evil?

---

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?


*****************************************

Tim (in talking about the "word of knowledge" thing):

quote:

---

I would agree with this. Well, kinda. Aren't prophecies either conditional (so don't get fufilled cos we don't do our part) or just describing what God is going to do? And wouldn't it be cruel if God gave prophecies he wasn't that sure he could pull off?

---

I don't know about being "cruel" but that's what is possible. And I understand about the conditionality of prophecy. But I was talking about things that God would assert that he is GOING to do in the future unilaterally. Cool that we agree here.



Cool stuff!

quote:

---

Some of the utterly mysterious workings of God in creation can be accounted for by appealing to this utterly hidden configuration of the sculpture the Father wants to give his Son. He aims at history having a certain configuration that will "glorify" him.

Here's an analogy I want to add to the discussion. Contemporary physics has found it necessary to appeal to a fundamental order that "governs" a whole, within which constituent particles have some "free play," but which sets parameters to this free play. (One of the first examples of this was Pauli's exclusion principle. See Wolfgant Pauli, "Exclusion Principle and "Quantum Mechanics" in Collected Papers,Vol. 2, 1964). The basic idea, as I understand it, is that possibilities are excluded by a governing order, but the order doesn't dictate or cause other possibilities to be actualized.

The statistical regularity of nature is the result of the non-coercive governing of order over parts. Somehow the "information" of the whole is "felt" by the constituent parts and influence what they can and cannot do. (For an interesting, if somewhat overly mystical, investigation in how 'wisdom" of nature is fundamental to contemporary science, see Gerald Schroeder's, The Hidden Face of God: How Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth. Shroeder is himself a renowned scientist.)

I submit that we may think of the "order" of creation along these lines. The Creator sets an "order" in place, within which all the parts, including human and angelic free decisions, have a role. The "order" gives space for freedom, but also delimits freedom. It thereby gives space for God, but also delimits God. (To the ever-present guardians of truth who critically watch over my words... note, the limitation is self-imposed, since God Created the order).

---

and then I say...

Now, I'm more fully understanding what he meant. He's saying that God has created a boundary wherein "free play" occurs. WITHIN this boundary, God cannot actualize even his predetermined wishes with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. He can have a good confidence of whether or not he can do what he wants to do, but he would never be able to know if he could pull it off for CERTAIN. (Actually, I think Sanders holds to this view) Why? Because in that "free play" zone that God has created, the chaos theory really takes hold. God has to interact heavily with the "irrevocable influences" of free willed beings, both human and non-human. Thus, in order for the persuasive power of God to actualize God's will WITHIN the "free play" zone, one of the two following parameters MUST be the case:

1) The composite influential power of all relevant influences are DIFFUSE ENOUGH that God's influential power can operate.

2) Enough of the sentient influential power is GOING IN GOD'S DIRECTION OF GOD'S WILLING to allow God's influential power to operate.


What this means is that God's actions are largely CONSTRAINED according to how creation's factors go. In the larger sense, this is all self-chosen, but the constraining effects remain. In short, God cannot act unilaterally in this "probational period" God can ONLY do things that creation's factors ALLOW him to do. This is EXTREMELY important to understand. Remember the whole "Mystery is in the Tornado" deal? That's basically what all that meant. God can ONLY do what is in the range of doable things, given the free-willed milieu. What this means is that one day, God could be seen doing AMAZING things...and on another day, God would be constrained in action to a high degree. It's all because of Creation.

Going back my analogy, it could always be the case that the redhaired guy decides to give $160 instead of $150...or even that a demon who doesn't want the money to change hands could halt it. No certainty.



Remember what Doc concedes. He readily acknowledges that freedom is ALWAYS limited in some way, not that it is dissolved. In that scenario, what would have to happen is that freedom of the event scenario would have to be SO limited via micromanagement of all affairs that a high probability (though not 1) of X occuring would exist.

Bottom line: When an event is sufficiently set within the realm of the "allowed free will zone" God cannot unilaterally make it ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that X will happen.


This is how I see it. Does this help, Brett?

quote:

---

Bottom line: When an event is sufficiently set within the realm of the "allowed free will zone" God cannot unilaterally make it ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that X will happen.

---

quote:

---

I guess I'm just wondering out loud about what exactly is outside of this "free will zone" in which God does not have meticulous control. For example, what about the crucifixion of Christ? Was this not fore-ordained by the Trinity? In fact, the OT seems to describe the event in rather amazing prophetic detail (Isa. 53 and Psalm 22). Was the event of the crucifixion an inevitability? Could it have actually been thwarted by free-willed beings under the open view?

---

Ah! Great questions.

Was the event of the crucifixion an inevitability? Couldn't have been.

Could it actually have been thwarted by free-willed being under the open view? Yep.

See...first of all, how did God KNOW that human beings WOULD invent crucifixion as a means of killing? It would seem self-evident that for Jesus's CRUCIFIXION to be foreordained as certain that the foreordination of crucifixion ITSELF is presupposed. What if crucifixion had NEVER been invented as a means of torture and death? Logically, Christ would not have been crucified. So, if God were to have foreordained the CRUCIFIXION of Jesus, he would have had to micromanage human affairs so that crucifixion would emerge. Makes sense, right? Not only that, but think about this. What would have happened if Jesus had have accidently fallen and broken his neck as a child? (You know how reckless children are...) Think about it. How many children back then possibly died of all types of diseases and what have you? Clearly, God would have had to micromanage situations so that the foreordained crucifixion would take place...ie. it wouldn't have done for Jesus to have died by broken neck, stoning, or illness. But, given the open view, could it ever have been 100% CERTAIN that it would have happened? No way.


So, perhaps we can say that God got LUCKY that everything went to plan. Hmmm...


Holla,

quote:

---

See...first of all, how did God KNOW that human beings WOULD invent crucifixion as a means of killing? It would seem self-evident that for Jesus's CRUCIFIXION to be foreordained as certain that the foreordination of crucifixion ITSELF is presupposed. What if crucifixion had NEVER been invented as a means of torture and death? Logically, Christ would not have been crucified. So, if God were to have foreordained the CRUCIFIXION of Jesus, he would have had to micromanage human affairs so that crucifixion would emerge. Makes sense, right? Not only that, but think about this. What would have happened if Jesus had have accidently fallen and broken his neck as a child? (You know how reckless children are...) Think about it. How many children back then possibly died of all types of diseases and what have you? Clearly, God would have had to micromanage situations so that the foreordained crucifixion would take place...ie. it wouldn't have done for Jesus to have died by broken neck, stoning, or illness. But, given the open view, could it ever have been 100% CERTAIN that it would have happened? No way.

---

quote:

---

I wonder, though, if it is inconsistent or illogical to hold that God has indeed pre-arranged certain things (through "micromanagement"), but not others. Would it be a denial of man's free will for God to ensure that the idea of crucifixion was planted in man's head at some point? It doesn't seem so. Further, would divine protection from physical harm for Jesus have been inconsistent with the open view of free will and the future? Again, doesn't seem so.

So, in other words, is a partly-settled future inconsistent with the open view [Doc believes in a partly-settled future if I recall his position in God of the Possible]? If it is not, I think much of the concern that people have with the open view regarding God's lack of control would be alleviated. I.e., although battles along the way are of uncertain resolution, the ultimate victory is already ours.

---

I'm wondering are we on the same page. I'm not saying that it's inconsistent with OVT for God to micromanage things such that things that God wants to occur in the future have a GREATER CHANCE of occuring. Of course, that's consistent. What I'm saying is that it is inconsistent and illogical to say that God, in the "allowed free will zone" (which is subject extensively to the effects of chaos theory) can foreordain an event exhaustively WILL OCCUR (meaning the probability of it's occurance is 1, like Icon says) It's just not possible, from what I understand.

In my opinion, this is no small matter. It basically means that though God is 1) the most powerful SINGLE influence on reality and 2) infinitely intelligent, it is still the case that in God's SELF-CREATED limitation, events significantly in the "allowed free will zone" CANNOT be guaranteed 100% to occur, regardless of how bad God wants it to come about.

Good stuff, y'all.

quote:

---

What I'm saying is that it is inconsistent and illogical to say that God, in the "allowed free will zone" (which is subject extensively to the effects of chaos theory) can foreordain an event exhaustively WILL OCCUR (meaning the probability of it's occurance is 1, like Icon says) It's just not possible, from what I understand.

In my opinion, this is no small matter. It basically means that though God is 1) the most powerful SINGLE influence on reality and 2) infinitely intelligent, it is still the case that in God's SELF-CREATED limitation, events significantly in the "allowed free will zone" CANNOT be guaranteed 100% to occur, regardless of how bad God wants it to come about.

---

quote:

---

I agree that anything in the "allowed free will zone" cannot be guaranteed 100% to occur. But the existence of this "zone" presupposes that there is a area of activity OUTSIDE of the free will zone. This non-free will area is where God's will is effectuated at his pleasure. As Iconoclast pointed out, the open view does not describe a God who is unable to cause something to happen despite the free will of his creatures. As I said before, I don't think a "partly-settled" future is inconsistent with the open view of God.

---

I think there needs to be more clarification about exactly WHAT lies in the "restricted" zone. From what I'm getting, some people here are thinking this:

There are some EVENTS that occur in the "allowed free will zone" and some EVENTS that occur in the "restricted" zone.

That is not what is being said. Perhaps an analogy would help. Think of a skyscraper building. You have the steel I-beams of the superstructure and you have the rooms and stuff that go inside, right? The superstructure gives boundary and SHAPE to how the building and rooms are GENERALLY going to look like. Within that boundary, however, there are many different ways the rooms can look. Think of the superstructure are the "restricted" zone and the rooms as the "allowed free will zone"

The "restricted zone" is more or less metaphysical boundaries that God has set for reality that the allowed free zone has to work by. It is NOT like whole detailed EVENTS are in the "restricted" zone. They aren't. I will talk about this more when I respond to Icon, I think.

Thanks,

quote:

---

There are some EVENTS that occur in the "allowed free will zone" and some EVENTS that occur in the "restricted" zone.
That is not what is being said.

---