 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/11/2002 4:35 AM (GMT -6) |   | I’m bummed out.
I was invited to present the open view briefly to some minister friends. I did so. The view was rejected. But in rejecting the view I was told by my friends: “Don’t think, Tom, that we don’t believe God changes his mind in response to prayer. We do! We just believe that God knows it all eternally.” When I suggested that this might amount to a logical contradiction and that foreknown changes of mind are be definition not “changes” of mind, they told me in all seriously: “Tom, your God is too small”
I give up.
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 7/11/2002 5:01 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I’m bummed out.
I was invited to present the open view briefly to some minister friends. I did so. The view was rejected. But in rejecting the view I was told by my friends: “Don’t think, Tom, that we don’t believe God changes his mind in response to prayer. We do! We just believe that God knows it all eternally.” When I suggested that this might amount to a logical contradiction and that foreknown changes of mind are be definition not “changes” of mind, they told me in all seriously: “Tom, your God is too small”
I give up.
Tom
 ! Electra
~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~ | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 7/11/2002 5:54 AM (GMT -6) | | That tends to be the response one always gets when the logical contradiction between the scriptural description of prayer and the traditional view of God's omniscience is brought to light. The answer is always something like "It's a mystery, and our minds are not able to understand all the ways of God."
What it is is a big cop-out (in my humble opinion).
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 7/11/2002 6:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tom,
I feel where you’re coming from, brother in Christ! Hey, but don’t be discouraged, just think about church history for a bit…hmmm. Imagine this, Jan Hus was burned at the stake, and for what? Hey, he was a heretic, right? I mean believing in the universal priesthood of believers, encouraging congregational hymn singing, preaching against the veneration of the pope by stressing only Christ could forgive sins…hmmm, persecution came from the reformation period too, but I don’t believe we need to get into all of that, right? I would, however, like to stress one great, yet neglected reformer for the reformed  , and that is, Jacobus Arminius. I mean talk about getting a hard time for his beliefs, sheesh!
I mean check this out, after his career filled with debate after debate, slander, charges of heresy Arminius by the year 1609 was confined to his bed much of the time. Therefore, it should not be astonishing, that he felt "a degree of disquietude at the loss of his reputation, the impugning of his salvation, and the waste of his labors ...." ( Bertius, An Oration On the Life and Death of that Reverend and Very Famous Man James Arminius D. D., Vol. 1, 40). To a good man nothing can be dearer than his reputation, "nothing of greater consequence to a Christian than his own salvation, and nothing more valuable to a Professor of Theology than those demonstrations which he carefully deduces from the scriptures" (idid). When it was generally known, that Arminius' life was becoming more and more frail, "their were some persons who had the audacity to reckon these circumstances among those punishments which God threatens to inflict on his enemies ...." (Ibid., 42). The final account of Arminius' death was given to us by Bertius:
"At length, on the Nineteenth Day of October, about noon, after this faithful servant of God had valiantly fulfilled all the duties of his warfare, had finished his course, had fought the good fight, and had kept the faith, -with his eyes lifted up to heaven, amidst the earnest prayers of those who were present, he calmly rendered up his spirit unto God the Father his Creator, to the Son his Redeemer, and to the Holy Ghost his Sanctifier, while each of the spectators exclaimed, 'O my soul, let me die the death of the righteous!' In this placid manner Arminius resigned his spirit, tired as it was of the cares of this world, and satiated with toils and afflictions" (Ibid., 46.).
Nine years after Arminius' death a national synod was held, which was to be called the Synod of Dort. It was held between the years of 1618-19, and "so far was it from the vision of Arminius that the Arminians themselves were never even seated as delegates, but were only summoned as culprits to appear before it for condemnation" (Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation, 279). Arminius' only intention was to set out and reform Reformed theology. However, he ended up creating a different Protestant paradigm altogether. "Though politically suppressed and later marginalized in the country of its birth, Arminianism took root and flourished on English soil in the late sixteenth century" (Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform, 472).
Tom, check it out, Arminian theology once thought heretical is now everywhere and by most, even Calvanist (generally speaking), do not consider Arminian theology as heretical…sweeeeet, A?
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
PS
Hang in there, bro! LOL
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
GODesteem
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 34
| Posted 7/11/2002 10:04 AM (GMT -6) | | “The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends”
(J.L. Mackie).
The above statement is completely incompatible with the Scriptures. Mind you, I should read the context of the quote. Who is J.L. Mackie? Has he ever looked at Genesis 50 or James 5 (re: Job)?
God loves Himself more than anything... He is our greatest treasure! | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 7/11/2002 11:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Ahh, the roving Calvinist enters the fray. . .what up, Godesteem?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
yankee
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 7/11/2002 2:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear GODesteem,
For God to USE evil is one thing and for Him to CAUSE evil to happen is another and I'm sure we'd agree on that. The passage of scripture that speaks of all things working together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to His purpose is a passage that tells me that our God is faithful to work with and to USE whatever happens whether good or evil in order that He might bring out of it that which is good. I am one who believes in a partly determined and partly open future and who does not deny God the right or ability to USE evil for the accomplishment of that which is good. I do however find that believing that God CAUSES evils to occur makes for quite a hard pill for me to swallow. Do you believe that God CAUSES evil actions to occur in order that He might achieve that which is good? Do you believe that God DOES evil in order that He might achieve that which is good? Do you believe that it is possible for God to to be a CAUSER of evil acts without being a DOER of evil? Just some thoughts I'd love to hear from you about. By the way, I also do not know who J.L. Mackie is.
Sincerly,
Yankee
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 7/12/2002 7:46 PM (GMT -6) | | J. L. Mackie was one of the more academically respected atheist philosphers of the past several decades. His book "The Miracle of Theism" has long been regard as one of the best works in the philosophy of religion by an atheist philosopher.
As for Tom's experience, I sympathize, having gotten similar responses several times. As part of my journey toward the open view, I was for a long time disturbed by what seemed to me an apparent contradiction between what I believed about divine foreknowledge, providence, and sovereignty and human freedom and responsibility. Not knowing how to resolve the problem, I for a long time took refuge in the thought that it must all be a mystery because "God's ways are not our ways" etc. What shook me out of that way of thinking was an essay by atheist Antony Flew, in which he argues that the apparent contradiction is a real one, and since contradictions are necessarily false if Christianity is essentially contradictory, then Christianity is necessarily false. When the problem was posed like that I realized that I could no longer avoid grapling directly with the problem and making whatever adjustments were necessary in my theology to avoid contradictions. Indeed, it is always direct engagement with the puzzles and paradoxes that we encounter that drives positive thought in all fields, including theology. Failure to seriously grapple with issues is, as BJS put it, a "cop-out" that serves only to stiffle inquiry.
In Christ,
Alan
Lege, lege, lege, ora, labora, et relege.
Edited by - Alan Rhoda on 07/15/2002 10:23:00 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 7/14/2002 6:18 AM (GMT -6) | | GODesteem and Yankee assert,
“Mind you, I should read the context of the quote. Who is J.L. Mackie?”
“By the way, I also do not know who J.L. Mackie is.”
Tiggers Reply,
Alan pretty much summed it up, thanks! The only addition, which is most likely irrelevant, would be that he was a Reader in Philosophy at Oxford University and Fellow of University College, Oxford. Furthermore, he died in 1981, and made the likes of Swinburne and Plantinga put their best foot forward at all times.
Regarding the context of the quote, (see chapter 9 on the Problem of Evil)
Mackie J.L. The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982.
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
PS
Regarding GODesteem’s comment “The above statement is completely incompatible with the Scriptures” to Mackie’s statement, “The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends.” I do believe we could swap text quite a bit, (See God of the Possible, The God Who Risks, Openness of God, etc.), because on the real, I truly can’t see how the Calvinist view of God is more Scriptural especially when one puts particular Calvinist proof texts against the whole of Scripture. Ok, now that is said, Yankee, nice and brief explanation.
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:40 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 |
|
|