 |
| 
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/24/2002 2:53 AM (GMT -6) |   | I would agree that our imperfections are not part of what God experiences when he is said to change his mind, I would also look for more, in the positive sense, how can a change of mind be scaled up?
That is where the traditional view of God changing his response, but not his plan, seems to be appropriate, viewing God changing his mind in this way scales up the concept, it seems to me.
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/25/2002 8:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Lee-
quote:
I would agree that our imperfections are not part of what God experiences when he is said to change his mind, I would also look for more…
Why? Unless one presumes on other grounds that God can’t actually change his mind, where does the motivation to look for more than removing human imperfections from the notion of a “change of mind” come from?quote:
…in the positive sense, how can a change of mind be scaled up? That is where the traditional view of God changing his response, but not his plan, seems to be appropriate, viewing God changing his mind in this way scales up the concept, it seems to me.
Some questions: First, this seems to be a “scaling out of” the notion of a change of mind into something entirely different, not a mere scaling up. Secondly, how is a change of “response” not a change of “plan”? If I’m planning on destroying Israel but don’t destroy her because they repent, how is this not a change of mind especially if God specifically calls it a “change of mind”? Thirdly, if changes of “response” are eternally determined by an all-encompassing unchanging “plan” then a) how are the changes of “response” changes at all? and b) how does this account for the reciprocal nature of the divine-human relationship?
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Edited by - TGB on 08/25/2002 1:47:24 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/25/2002 1:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: in your response you hit on something that I think is very important and shows the differing view bewteen a reformed response to these verses and an open view. Lee seems to be taking the view that we need to find an answer to the verses while you are trying to see what God means within the meaning of the words chosen.
If we believe God inspired scripture, then we must assume that he chose the words for the meaning they specifically convey. Therefore the meaning and truth of the verses must lie within the words used, not in trying to get away from the meaning of the words.
For instance, when Jesus said he is the door, he did not mean he was an actual door. But he did mean that he was like a door and held some of the characteristics of a door (we enter salvation through him, etc.) If scripture states that God changed his mind, the truth of the verses lies within how we interpret changed his mind, but whatever truth comes out of that interpretation must come within the meaning of the words used...Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/25/2002 6:14 PM (GMT -6) | | I think you're hitting on the real difference, writerdad. Here are some thoughts I included in an account of the open view that I’m submitting to my leadership for consideration. Sorry for the length. There's so much of Doc, Sanders, and others in this I hardly know where to acknowledge indebtedness. Hanging out here these two years and talking so much, ideas run together.
Tom
-----------------------
Anthropomorphism is a form a metaphorical speech that attributes human physical characteristics to God or depicts God in roles obviously not literally possible for him (e.g., as a father, husband, and shepherd). As such it is a non-literal way of communicating something real or truthful about God. For example, “God’s eyes roam to and fro” is anthropomorphic language. Does God have literal (i.e., physical) eyes? Open theists agree he does not. But the truth to which this non-literal form of speech refers is, all agree, very much literally true. It is literally true that God possesses intimate and exhaustive knowledge of all things and (I would add) that we are incapable of escaping the notice of such knowledge. This is what Scripture means when it speaks of God’s “eyes.”
Carry this over to the description of God as “changing his mind,” of speaking of the future as what “may” or “may not” be, or of experiencing the disappointment of unfulfilled expectations. Open theists deny that these are anthropomorphic in the strict literary sense. There’s certainly nothing in the relevant contexts that suggests they are. And if it be granted that such language is anthropomorphic, problems arise and we are still delivered, albeit by a different route, to the open view. For what is “God changes his mind” an anthropomorphism of? To what does it refer? What truth about God does it reveal? If God’s “eyes” reveals to us his intimate and unmediated knowledge of all things, and if his “right arm” reveals his incomparable power to accomplish what he wills, what does Scripture’s claim that “God changed his mind” reveal about God if it is also true that God cannot change his mind? I submit that no meaning is possible in such a case. At least no one to date has managed to offer a convincing argument for what such passages reveal about God if God does not in fact ever change his intentions, will, or mind.
Opponents of the open view are quick to dismiss our understanding of such passages, but none seem to feel it necessary to say precisely what these passages do mean other than to claim, “They are obviously anthropomorphic.” Yes, but what do they mean? What truths regarding the divine side of the God-world relationship are revealed in such passages? In my view, opponents of the open view mistakenly take “non-literal” (i.e., anthropomorphic) to mean “untrue” when the anthropomorphism in question betokens an open future or introduces contingency into God…
…First, relegating openness passages to the category of anthropomorphic and phenomenological language simply begs the question. It will not do to claim that as anthropomorphisms openness passages all reveal God as “relating intimately to us in time and space as if” changing his mind, regretting previous decisions, etc., while qualifying these by affirming the contrary. This locates the meaning of such passages entirely in the mere fact of their being anthropomorphic and not in what the words themselves actually say about God. In this case there would be no difference whatsoever in meaning between any two openness passages whether God is described as changing his mind, regretting decisions he made, or experiencing unfulfilled expectations. No one of these reveals something about God which the others do not also equally reveal, for the meaning is not in the words but in the mere fact that God is described “anthropomorphically.” We could conceivably lift each of these phrases out of the passages in which they occur, place them in a hat, withdrawal them and replace them blindfolded back in the passages from which they were taken all without affecting the meaning of Scripture in the slightest. This is the problem with claiming that the openness passages all mean the same thing. They are all equally permitted to say God is personally related to us in time and space but forbidden to individually say anything unique about “how” God is related to us. This is the problem. If we claim that such passages depict God as acting and relating in ways not possible for him, by what hermeneutic then can we still claim that they reveal anything about God, much less that they reveal him as intimately and personally related to us?
Secondly, the whole approach to Scripture’s open motif as anthropomorphic can be turned on itself and shown to prove too much. How does one know, for example, that “God loves” is not equally as anthropomorphic as “God regrets”? Both are straightforward descriptions of God. On what basis does one distinguish “God loves” as literal and “God regrets” as anthropomorphic if not presuppositions about what is and is not appropriate for God? Perhaps “God loves us” is also an accommodation to our limited understanding designed to depict God “as if” he loved us when in fact he is as incapable of loving as he is of regretting decisions he made. In reply, open theists point out that we rightly understand “God loves” to mean something analogous to what we mean when we humans love (without the attending imperfections of course). Otherwise we have no basis upon which to ascribe meaning to the Bible’s claim that God loves us. Open theists simply argue that “God regrets” and “God expected what did not come to pass” are also to be understood as meaning something analogous to what we mean when we claim to regret decisions and experience the disappointment of unfulfilled expectations (without the attending imperfections of course). Otherwise we have no basis upon which to ascribe meaning to the Bible’s claim that God regrets or expects what does not come to pass. If, however, God is believed to be incapable of facing the sort of open future implied by Scripture’s descriptions of him as regretting decisions, expecting to come to pass what does not in fact come to pass, etc., then the concepts of “unfulfilled expectations,” “changes of mind,” and “genuine regret” cannot in the least apply to God, at least not in a way that we can understand. And if such categories do not apply to God in a way we can understand, it is impossible to argue that they “reveal” God to us.
Lastly, such an approach is particularly damaging to Pentecostal spirituality which has always believed God is both experienced and affected by us, something difficult to account for if we also maintain that the openness passages describe God as acting and relating to us in ways not possible for him.
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 8/26/2002 9:51 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB,
YOU GO, DUDE!
Very clear, concise and understandable for us laymen!
For TGB!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/26/2002 12:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom, your piece seems to be written carefull craft. Good work.
My take is that there are two "sides" that have squared off against each other, each defining its "side,"l but neither realizing that they both buy into the same foundation. Each reads scripture with a modern mind.
I'd suggest The Sacred and the Profane by Mircea Eliade, and then Spirit of Truth: The Origins of Johannine Pneumatology by John Breck.
Maybe that way you could read these passages differntly that either side, with more appreciation for how the text was written, and how the understanding of these issues grew and developed while leading up to the very events that they were foreshaddowing -- Christ's Coming, and the Eschaton. THAT way you won't be just one more strawman builder. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/26/2002 12:27 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Maybe that way you could read these passages differntly tha[n] either side, with more appreciation for how the text was written, and how the understanding of these issues grew and developed while leading up to the very events that they were foreshaddowing -- Christ's Coming, and the Eschaton. THAT way you won't be just one more strawman builder.
Al-
A way to read openness texts that neither affirms nor denies openness and foreshaddows Christ's coming. Everything else is straw.
I'm very interested! I can't get the books, but I trust you to give me the essence. I'm all ears!
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 8/26/2002 1:12 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
At least no one to date has managed to offer a convincing argument for what such passages reveal about God if God does not in fact ever change his intentions, will, or mind.
Tom,
Recently I was discussing the OV with someone who happens to be an Old Testament scholar (and the president of a college and seminary). I asked about the exegetical criteria for assigning an anthropomorphic interpretation to a biblical description of God's action, response, thought, motive, etc.
Although our conversation was unfortunately brief, his short answer was that you need to look at the limitations of the ancient Hebrew vocabulary. If I understand him correctly, his view is that a literal description of God's thoughts or motives in the OT should not be given too much interpretive weight because, for example, the ancient Hebrew vocabulary was limited in its ability to describe abstract ideas. He believes that, given the limitations of the language, OV proponents give too much weight to OT passages suggesting that God changes his mind, etc.
I would love to be able to test this hypothesis. However, (1) I don't know ancient Hebrew and (2) I don't know what the classical or traditional (i.e., non-literal) interpretations of these passages are.
If the OV'ers could demonstrate that the classical interpretation(s) COULD have been communicated in a more straightforward manner, this argument could be turned around and used in favor of the OV.
Are there any standard classical/traditional interpretations of these passages that could be used to test the hypothesis? I.e., whether or not it would have been possible to communicate the non-literal meaning in a more straightforward manner using the ancient Hebrew vocabulary?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/26/2002 3:22 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I'm very interested! I can't get the books, but I trust you to give me the essence. I'm all ears!
Tom
I'll try. (Do you want me to e-mail part of it?)
JET's imput is very interesting too.
:)
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 08/26/2002 10:45:12 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/26/2002 6:38 PM (GMT -6) | | JET: but I think we would all agree that ALL language is limited when it comes to the nature of God. And I would ask if this professor believes the same for other passages that happen to agree with what he believes.
My problem with his take is that it seems (for people who disagree with the OV) that such passages ALWAYS shouldn't be taken that away, but not other passages which happen to agree with the person making the statement.
One could easily say that the Hebrew language had a problem describing other "abstract" ideas such as the love of God and the grace of God. Should those be taken seriously as well, or should such passages be given less weight as well? Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/27/2002 1:00 AM (GMT -6) | | JET-
Nice question. I’m not an Old Testament expert and would love to hear Terrance Fretheim or Walter Bruggemann comment on this, but it seems to me that writerdad is heading in the right direction. I’m thinking on “..a literal description of God's thoughts or motives in the OT should not be given too much interpretive weight because, for example, the ancient Hebrew vocabulary was limited in its ability to describe abstract ideas,” and asking myself, What’s “abstract” about a text that says, “God changed his mind”? What’s “abstract” about God saying, “I thought Israel would return to me but she didn’t”? I find these rather concrete descriptions that any ancient Jew would have had no trouble understanding at all. Certainly “Joshua changed his mind” and “Mary thought Joshua would return home but he didn’t” are not thought on linguistic grounds by your professor friend to describe “abstractions.” If he’s arguing on the basis of vocabulary limitations that “God changed his mind” be thought to describe an abstraction that the writer simply didn’t have to words to express otherwise (which I’d argue is not the case), why doesn’t he argue that “Moshe changed his mind” be thought to describe an abstraction that the writer didn’t have the words to express otherwise? He’s arguing on the basis of limitations of vocabulary, right? But the vocabulary is only limited if one presupposes the truths about God which Hebrew is thought to be incapable of describing.
But I’m not so sure ancient Jews were as incapable of thinking and expressing themselves in abstract terms as some think. I might be misunderstanding your professor friend. It is often pointed out that ancient Hebrew is a rather simple, concrete language. Its grammar, for example, is pretty simple and uncomplicated. It’s not rich in tenses when compared, for example, to Greek which is more sophisticated. I’m no expert on this, but this much seems true enough. But that doesn’t mean the ancient Hebrews didn’t “think” in past, past-perfect, future, future perfect, terms. In modern Arabic (a language which grammatically has been frozen for the past 1,300 years because the Quran was declared to be the sole authority on grammar), we have the same two tenses that ancient Hebrew had; perfect and imperfect (roughly, past and present). No separate future tense whatsoever. But we do talk about the future in Arabic. Other helping words are brought in to express the future tense. Sometimes the present is used and context alone determines futurity. I know just enough biblical Hebrew to know the same thing is true there. This is only one example, but I’d be wary of drawing conclusions about how abstractly ancient Hebrews were or were not able to think or express themselves on the basis of their language.
What interests me is how your professor friend is able to claim what the truth about these passages really is if he admits that the Old Testament language was incapable of expressing this truth. Where does he go to discover it? If Hebrew couldn’t talk about immutability, simplicity, impassibility (assuming he believes these), where did he get them from? If he claims they are found in the Hebrew OT, then why insist on the inability of ancient Hebrew to describe such truths? And how does he claim that passages which describe God as acting and thinking in ways that don’t jive with these classical doctrines couldn’t have been written any other way because of vocabulary limitations? Round and round we go.
Assuming that all of history is either predetermined or atemporally foreknown as certain by God, why does God describe things in ways we would expect if the future was open and not what we’d expect if it was eternally predetermined or exhaustively foreknown as certain? Your friend seems to suggest that this is the case because ancient Hebrew was incapable of describing the truth “as it is” with respect to God. But he shoots himself in the foot I think.
Others have suggested that God describes himself in ways that appear to contradict the classical doctrines because relating to God meaningfully for us requires that God talk to us this way (e.g., Calvin’s description that God “lisps” in speaking to us). If God talked to us in language that precisely reflected the classical truths of immutability and impassibility, relating to him would be impossible. This is exactly my objection to these classical doctrines. They can’t be lived. Relating to God, then, gets predicated upon appearances and not truth. This is fine as long as you believe the appearances reflect the truth, but once you know otherwise how do you relate to God? If the classical claims about immutability, atemporal foreknowledge or determinism are believed to be true, and it’s also believed to be true that belief in these doctrines cannot meaningfully facilitate relationship and intimacy with God, then what happens to relationship and intimacy?
I know determinists (and simple-foreknowledge folks) disagree. I don’t doubt that THEY relate meaningfully to God. I just don’t believe whatever intimacy they enjoy with God is consciously arrived at via these doctrines. Nobody’s actually walked anyone else through “doing” intimacy and relationship by consciously employing such doctrines. If something like this is available, I’d love to read it.
Now, Al will immediately post a reminder  that we cannot know God in his essence, that we only know God in his energies, and that God cannot be confined to our categories, so the door is left open for God to be other than we know him to be through his revelation. There’s a lot of truth about God outside what God’s revealed to us. This is all very good and true. I don’t see that it resolves the existential question at all. It remains to be asked, If our experience of God is predicated upon believing God-Revealed to be true (because OUR relating to God requires it), then how do we proceed relationally if we also believe that God-Unrevealed amounts to the contrary of God-Revealed? I said it lots of times before, God’s transcendence may certainly mean that God is more than he’s revealed himself to be, but it remains true that he is not less than he’s revealed himself to be.
Yes? No? Clear as mud?
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Edited by - TGB on 08/27/2002 06:15:37 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 8/27/2002 3:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: But I’m not so sure ancient Jews were as incapable of thinking and expressing themselves in abstract terms as some think. I might be misunderstanding your professor friend. It is often pointed out that ancient Hebrew is a rather simple, concrete language. Its grammar, for example, is pretty simple and uncomplicated. It’s not rich in tenses when compared, for example, to Greek which is more sophisticated.
Electra: As a student of literature, I remember being assigned portions of Shakespeare’s writing, which is remarkable for its vast vocabulary, and the King James Old Testament, which is remarkable for its limited vocabulary. Apart from any religious convictions about inspiration, the Old Testament is considered a classic work of art. Its “limited” vocabulary does not prevent it from communicating something profound about the human condition with power and beauty that speaks to every generation.
I also remember reading an article called “Odysseus’ Scar” that compared the ancient Hebrew story of Abraham and Isaac with the roughly contemporary ancient Greek story of the Odyssey. The article argued that the Hebrew story was aesthetically superior and more advanced (from a literary, not religious, perspective). I can’t remember the author right now....
Anyway, does anyone else find it a little paternalistic to think that we understand what Hebrew scriptures have to say about God better than the Hebrew authors did, as JET’s OT scholar suggested?
Electra
~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~ | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/27/2002 3:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra-
See T Fretheim at all in your neighborhood? I wonder what his thoughts on this would be.
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/27/2002 4:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra: ...to think that we understand what Hebrew scriptures have to say about God better than the Hebrew authors did, as JET’s OT scholar suggested?
Genesis 3:15 "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."
Revelation 12 "4 His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. ... 13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. ... 15 Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16 But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring–those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus."
Some packages just take a bit longer to be unwrapped. No 'slight' to the editors of Genesis!
Tom, I thought that was you wrote was very clear. However, I think that you also made the older (I pictured) gentleman into a straw man (my yesterday's rant). I truly bet that he would agree with most of your objection, AND that you did not exhaust what he was saying. There is more to linguistics.
The defining aspect to revelation, though, is that is goes beyond the lingual and conceptual vessels that contain and preserve it. IMHO. Don't you think so? The early OT used language and concepts that it had available, and so it discusses and examines in a way where God as Trinity can not be found unless looked for. The Spirit is handled more the way neighboring religions would. But its also not. And THAT is the difference. That difference would not be lost on its authors. Kudos to Electra. But, kudos to the OT scholar, there is still a difference too. Hense the Genesis text above.
I don't think that the issue is “abstractions” just because he made mention of abstract language. Tom, you bore that out very well with your illustration of time in Arabic. And I bet he knows that too. He is saying something else. (But I'm betting that there is more to say that he is not saying too.)
Tom: I just don’t believe whatever intimacy they enjoy with God is consciously arrived at via these doctrines. Nobody’s actually walked anyone else through “doing” intimacy and relationship by consciously employing such doctrines.
What initimacy is EVER arrived at by doctrines?
Tom: What’s “abstract” about God saying, “I thought Israel would return to me but she didn’t”? I find these rather concrete descriptions that any ancient Jew would have had no trouble understanding at all.
Nothing at all. But isn't your reading one based on a modern's attention to psychology and the individual person. What if this is a royal decree, spoken in the language of official royal, poitical decrees. (It was recorded by the royal scribe, in an age when very few things at all were recorded.)
The O.T. speaks of the Spirit in a way that is less than personal. But that does not mean that we should stop aknowledging the Spirit as a Person of the Trinity. Nor is it a problem of "abstractions." Its just the language and conceptual framework available being used. (God even used Zarathustra and Qumran in the development of the language that paves the way for the Gospel of John.)
Tom: The mention of essence and energies is a red herring here. I think that your pithy phrase about "not less" is good though.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/27/2002 5:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Al: I thought that was you wrote was very clear. However, I think that you also made the older (I pictured) gentleman into a straw man (my yesterday's rant). I truly bet that he would agree with most of your objection, AND that you did not exhaust what he was saying. There is more to linguistics.
Tom: I bet you’re right. I’m sure we’d agree on a lot of the linguistics stuff. But I’m sure our disagreement over the open view would stand on the issue of whether or not the openness passages are anthropomorphic, and if they, how we are to deal with them.
Al: The defining aspect to revelation, though, is that is goes beyond the lingual and conceptual vessels that contain and preserve it. IMHO. Don't you think so?
Tom: Absolutely. We’ve been here before. I’m shouting it out: “God is more than he reveals himself to be!”
Al: The early OT used language and concepts that it had available, and so it discusses and examines in a way where God as Trinity can not be found unless looked for. The Spirit is handled more the way neighboring religions would. But its also not. And THAT is the difference. That difference would not be lost on its authors. Kudos to Electra. But, kudos to the OT scholar, there is still a difference too. Hense the Genesis text above.
Tom: I think I see the difference. Because God is more than he reveals himself to be, you feel that EVERY description of God is necessarily DIFFERENT than the truth which is God. For every single statement which reveals God, transcendence means we have to be able to DENY something about the statement, otherwise God is thought to be “confined” or “reduced” to merely human categories. I wouldn’t agree with this.
Al: What initimacy is EVER arrived at by doctrines?
Tom: OK, “beliefs” then. Two people don’t build a meaningful, intimate relationship without believing some things to be true and other things to not be true about themselves and the other person. Intimacy is impossible if I believe you are not trustworthy. It’s impossible if I believe you have predetermined to dump me in the end. It’s impossible if I believe you don’t trust ME. It’s impossible if I don’t belief anything about you. I think you follow. Let’s not call ‘em “doctrines.” Let’s call them “beliefs” (or whatever) about the personhood, intentions, trustworthiness of the other person. These sorts of beliefs do hinder or encourage intimacy. Agree?
Al: But isn't your reading one based on a modern's attention to psychology and the individual person. What if this is a royal decree, spoken in the language of official royal, poitical decrees. (It was recorded by the royal scribe, in an age when very few things at all were recorded.)
Tom: We’d have to walk through ‘em all one by one. I don’t think the “openness” of every passage suggesting God faces an open future can be dismissed this way. By all means, every passage ought to take into account all the contextual factors (language, culture, context, occasion, etc.).
Al: The O.T. speaks of the Spirit in a way that is less than personal. But that does not mean that we should stop aknowledging the Spirit as a Person of the Trinity.
Tom: I’d be tempted to think it would suggest we ought not acknowledge the Spirit as a “person” if that was all we had. We think of the Spirit as a person because we have passages that point to the Spirit as a person. But what if I were to suggest on the basis that God necessarily transcends his revelation that the Spirit is not a person and that insisting the Spirit is a “person” (in a way necessary to maintain the integrity of the analogous nature of language) is illegitimate? What if I said the passages which described the Spirit in less than personal terms gave us the REAL truth about the Spirit?
Al: The mention of essence and energies is a red herring here.
Tom: You’re probably right. I admit to not being very up on Orthodox doctrines. What I was trying to get at was the distinction between God-Revealed and God-Unrevealed.
I’m not an expert on Calvin or Aquinas. If I’m setting up a straw man by misrepresenting their (or modern day Calvinists or Thomists) beliefs, by all means, set me straight. There’s God’s “unconditional and exhaustive decree of all things.” Did Calvin or did he not teach such an all-encompassing, all-determining, unconditional decree? There’s immutability, pure actuality, impassibilty, simplicity, etc. Is there nobody who believes in these things? Am I making them up? Did I miss something somewhere? Did Aquinas or did he not teach that God was incapable of true relations, that we relate to God as we relate to a stone pillar; we move in relation to the pillar, but the pillar never moves in relation to us. Either these are subject to the scrutiny of reason, Scripture, and experience or they are not. Which is it? Every time I criticize such notions you accuse me of erecting a straw man.
Now, I’ve already conceded that those holding to these beliefs don’t agree with me that they imply what I think they imply with regard to relating to God. But it certainly looks to me that these beliefs imply a less-than-relational, less-than-personal God. I could be wrong. I’d certainly be wrong if I incorrectly attribute to Calvinists belief in an all-determining unconditional divine decree. That would be a straw man. I’d also certainly be wrong if I incorrectly claimed that no Calvinist or Thomist has an intimate, personal relationship with God. That would be a straw man for sure. But I don’t think I’m misunderstanding Calvin on this matter and I don’t claim that he didn’t have a personal relationship with God. So, unless you want to claim that the fact that Calvinists and Thomists have personal relationships with God in itself proves that their doctrine of God is right, you’ll have to deal with the arguments for or against their doctrine on biblical, rational, and existential terms. Just claiming I’m erecting straw men isn’t proving anything.
Am I misunderstanding you bro?
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/27/2002 7:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra: Do we know what the scriptures say better than the Hebrews did? That is a question that came up in my bible study on Revelation. The consesus was mixed, but I certainly see nothing in affirming it as true as arrogant. While the Hebrews lived it, we have the advantage of 2000 years of study and opinions by theologians, laymen, etc., who were truly seeking after God. And granting that even the Hebrews were like us (such as the apostles who at first did understand why Jesus came), sinful, rebellious humans and granting that wouldn't understand a lot of what was inspired by God, I would say there is nothing paternalistic in believing that we may know more about what God wrote than they did. I am not saying we do, I am simply saying that I disagree with your assertion based on the evidence seen. Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/27/2002 7:43 AM (GMT -6) | | You are good, Tom.
Tom: These sorts of beliefs do hinder or encourage intimacy. Agree?
Al: I Agree!
And you said above that you aren't saying that they don't have a relationship.
I'm just saying that I see value in being alert to what the Calvinists actually believe, not just what the text books say they do. Frankly, I see good reason to think that the textbooks are reductive.
Tom: I think I see the difference. Because God is more than he reveals himself to be, you feel that EVERY description of God is necessarily DIFFERENT than the truth which is God. For every single statement which reveals God, transcendence means we have to be able to DENY something about the statement, otherwise God is thought to be “confined” or “reduced” to merely human categories. I wouldn’t agree with this.
Al: That's the energies/essence thing. And I'm not saying that. I'm pretty much touting the fact of progressive revelation. Then...when I said the authors had a glimmer of an inkling of a view of what was ahead (which they rejoiced in, in faith), that was the rest of what I was saying:
quote:
Al: The early OT used language and concepts that it had available, and so it discusses and examines in a way where God as Trinity can not be found unless looked for. The Spirit is handled more the way neighboring religions would. But its also not. And THAT is the difference. That difference would not be lost on its authors. Kudos to Electra. But, kudos to the OT scholar, there is still a difference too. Hense the Genesis text above.
Tom: OK, “beliefs” then. ... Let’s not call ‘em “doctrines.” Let’s call them “beliefs” (or whatever)
Al: Not you and not you now, but on this site I've seen where concepts can put the creap on relationship. And its not always so subtle.
Then...
quote:
Al: The O.T. speaks of the Spirit in a way that is less than personal. But that does not mean that we should stop aknowledging the Spirit as a Person of the Trinity.
Tom: I’d be tempted to think it would suggest we ought not acknowledge the Spirit as a “person” if that was all we had. We think of the Spirit as a person because we have passages that point to the Spirit as a person. But what if I were to suggest on the basis that God necessarily transcends his revelation that the Spirit is not a person and that insisting the Spirit is a “person” (in a way necessary to maintain the integrity of the analogous nature of language) is illegitimate? What if I said the passages which described the Spirit in less than personal terms gave us the REAL truth about the Spirit?
Al: Revelation is not just data. THAT is an Islamic invasion into Medieval theology (via the Moors into Cordova, Spain). What am I talking about? Your phrase "...if that was all we had." You went on )to say "We think of the Spirit as a person because we have passages that point to the Spirit as a person." Basil said that he knew the Spirit was God because he knew the Spirit. Not just the text. (Some poor representations of this are quoted below.)
quote:
from On The Holy Spirit, By St. Basil the Great
So, too, is the Spirit to every one who receives lt, as though given to him alone, and yet It sends forth grace sufficient and full for all mankind, and is enjoyed by all who share It, according to the capacity, not of Its power, but of their nature.
...
Either through me or through others the Lord will grant full explanation on matters which have yet to be made clear, according to the knowledge supplied to the worthy by the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Tom: Every time I criticize such notions you accuse me of erecting a straw man.
Al: That was yesterday's rant. And in ranting I inevitably erected my own strawmen too.
Today, lets just try to see the subtleties, and not only look at the ugly errors.
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 08/27/2002 4:26:40 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/27/2002 7:46 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/27/2002 2:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Some further thoughts...
quote:
Unless one presumes on other grounds that God can’t actually change his mind, where does the motivation to look for more than removing human imperfections from the notion of a “change of mind” come from?
To look for a positive sense in which to scale up this concept.
quote:
Lee: …in the positive sense, how can a change of mind be scaled up? That is where the traditional view of God changing his response, but not his plan, seems to be appropriate, viewing God changing his mind in this way scales up the concept, it seems to me.
Some questions: First, this seems to be a “scaling out of” the notion of a change of mind into something entirely different, not a mere scaling up. Secondly, how is a change of “response” not a change of “plan”? If I’m planning on destroying Israel but don’t destroy her because they repent, how is this not a change of mind especially if God specifically calls it a “change of mind”? Thirdly, if changes of “response” are eternally determined by an all-encompassing unchanging “plan” then a) how are the changes of “response” changes at all? and b) how does this account for the reciprocal nature of the divine-human relationship?
As far as "scaling out" is concerned, a similar view can be taken with the expression, "the arm of God," which, when scaled up, has nothing to do with an actual arm as we experience it.
A change of response can involve no change of plan, if the threatened judgment was known to produce the response of repentance, which is why God sent Jonah, and why Jonah was reluctant to go.
Changes of response are real changes, it seems to me, since the response God has to repentance at Nineveh was different after they repented. The reciprocal nature of the divine-human relationship is part of God's plan, I would say, intended by him, and incorporated into his design. Our choices do not surprise God, but they are real choices we make.
quote:
In my view, opponents of the open view mistakenly take “non-literal” (i.e., anthropomorphic) to mean “untrue” when the anthropomorphism in question betokens an open future or introduces contingency into God.
How about "unlike what we experience," instead of "untrue." The qualification is to keep us from saying that God's experience and our experience are the same, but an analogy is still appropriate.
quote:
It will not do to claim that as anthropomorphisms openness passages all reveal God as “relating intimately to us in time and space as if” changing his mind, regretting previous decisions, etc., while qualifying these by affirming the contrary.
Changing his mind = changing his response. Regretting previous decisions = emotional reaction to sin. These are not opposites, though, it seems to me.
quote:
How does one know, for example, that “God loves” is not equally as anthropomorphic as “God regrets”?
"God loves" is indeed far beyond our experiences of loving others, and in that sense is anthropomorphic. But it means much more than what we mean, not less, and certainly not the opposite of "man loves."
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/27/2002 6:08 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Electra: Do we know what the scriptures say better than the Hebrews did? That is a question that came up in my bible study on Revelation. The consesus was mixed, but I certainly see nothing in affirming it as true as arrogant. While the Hebrews lived it, we have the advantage of 2000 years of study and opinions by theologians, laymen, etc., who were truly seeking after God. And granting that even the Hebrews were like us (such as the apostles who at first did understand why Jesus came), sinful, rebellious humans and granting that wouldn't understand a lot of what was inspired by God, I would say there is nothing paternalistic in believing that we may know more about what God wrote than they did. I am not saying we do, I am simply saying that I disagree with your assertion based on the evidence seen. Harold
Harold-
Could be wrong, but I think Electra was arguing more along the lines of the “Hebrew” Scriptures. Is it paternalistic to think we know what the “Hebrew” says better than the authors did? I do believe in progressive revelation. We know more about the Trinity, redemption, the Antichrist, etc., a lot of things, than Moses, Abraham, and David. Electra I don’t think is saying THIS is paternalistic. I think she’s saying it might be wrong to assume we know what an Old Testament writer meant to say better than that Old Testament writer because we know Hebrew better than they did.
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/27/2002 6:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Al: You are good, Tom.
Tom: Why callest thou me good? There is none good save Alla…eh, save God!
Al: I'm just saying that I see value in being alert to what the Calvinists actually believe, not just what the text books say they do.
Tom: You’re absolutely right. This is fair. All sides in the openness debate (and other debates too) should recognize this up front. I’m OK with this. In fact, I think Doc address this very issue in his reply to Ware in this Summer’s issue of JETS. Doc writes:quote:
Second, one must be very careful about dismissing a position—to say nothing of breaking fellowship with a group of believers—on the basis of the implications they think follow from that position. After all, to many Arminians and open theists, the Calvinism Ware defends seems to deny the glory of God, the universal love of God, the wisdom of God, the urgency of prayer, the genuineness of God’s interactions with us, human moral responsibility, the need for missions, and many other things. Yet, since Calvinists themselves don’t deny these things, they are accepted as sisters and brothers in Christ. Arminians and open theists may judge them to be (fortunately) logically inconsistent, but we shouldn’t ascribe to them conclusions which we think follow from their position but which they themselves deny. Open theists would simply like this Christian and academic courtesy to be extended to us. Ware obviously can’t understand how we avoid the implications he ascribes to us. Fine, perhaps we are simply logical nincompoops. Or perhaps (as I believe), Ware has difficulty getting inside of a system of thought that is radically different from his own. But in either case, it seems misguided and unchristian to move to brand a position as “non-evangelical” because some can’t understand how they avoid certain negative implications they think their theology implies. Our explicit confessions of faith, not what others think logically follows from our confessions of faith, should be the basis of our fellowship.
Al: That's the energies/essence thing. And I'm not saying that. I'm pretty much touting the fact of progressive revelation. Then...when I said the authors had a glimmer of an inkling of a view of what was ahead (which they rejoiced in, in faith), that was the rest of what I was saying.
Tom: Gotcha!
Al: Revelation is not just data. THAT is an Islamic invasion into Medieval theology (via the Moors into Cordova, Spain).
Tom: Go Al!
Al: What am I talking about? Your phrase "...if that was all we had." You went on to say "We think of the Spirit as a person because we have passages that point to the Spirit as a person." Basil said that he knew the Spirit was God because he knew the Spirit. Not just the text.
Tom: Fair enough. What if he didn’t have the text? Would Basil’s experience of the Spirit and his “data” download from that experience (e.g., “I experience the Spirit” ergo—here comes the date—“The Spirit is a person!” [which I’d agree with by the way]) be normative for the entire Church? Obviously not. So I agree with you, it’s “not just the text.” But revelation is “textual.” It’s getting at what this text means where the open debate is being waged. If my hammering away on the text and limiting myself to what Calvinist say about these texts led you to think I didn’t appreciate other things Calvin said, I’m sorry. I do. However, I have very ambivalent feelings about Calvin as a person. His tone. His prideful belief in the superiority of his own intellect and writings. His dealings with Servetus. I know he can’t be reduced to just these. But these really make it hard for me to identify much with the man. God forgive me.
Al: Today, lets just try to see the subtleties, and not only look at the ugly errors.
Tom: It’s a done deal. Well, maybe just sometimes let’s throw in ugly pot-shots at theologians we don’t like.
Al, I wanna try something. Something…prophetic. I wanna take a stab at understanding you. Tell me if I’m wrong. Here goes. You’re an artist. Looking “for the subtleties” is in your blood. When you look at a Renior you look past the chemical composition of the paint, the size of the frame, the direction of the brush strokes, to something else. That something that can’t be seen by just knowing the “facts” about the painting or the painter. Art has made you into the sort of person that refuses to dismiss people or their beliefs on the basis of rational arguments alone (however airtight these rational arguments might be). Art has taught you that truth may still be there, lurking somewhere in the person, and in their beliefs. And rational argument can’t reveal that truth. So we should always leave the door open to the possibility (certainty?) that the beliefs we have rationally dispensed with may yet contain much truth (about God and about life).
Close?
Tom
PS Lee, good post bro! Talk to ya in a bit. Gotta go running this morning and get my exercise in.
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/28/2002 12:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Unless one presumes on other grounds that God can’t actually change his mind, where does the motivation to look for more than removing human imperfections from the notion of a “change of mind” come from?
Lee: To look for a positive sense in which to scale up this concept.
Tom: How is removing human imperfections from the concept not a positive “scaling up” of the concept? Unless one presumes that a genuine change of mind IS itself a human imperfection, there should be no reason to think such a thing cannot be genuinely said of God. We’ve said what the concept “can’t” mean with regard to God by removing human imperfections from the way we change our mind. You agreed (I think), but take this as a “negative” scaling up? Now you want to scale it up “positively”? To do so would require saying what the concept “can” mean. But it looks to me like you want to say more about what it “can’t” mean. Where’s your “positive” “can mean” scaled up version?
Tom (earlier): Some questions: First, this seems to be a “scaling out of” the notion of a change of mind into something entirely different, not a mere scaling up. Secondly, how is a change of “response” not a change of “plan”? If I’m planning on destroying Israel but don’t destroy her because they repent, how is this not a change of mind especially if God specifically calls it a “change of mind”? Thirdly, if changes of “response” are eternally determined by an all-encompassing unchanging “plan” then a) how are the changes of “response” changes at all? and b) how does this account for the reciprocal nature of the divine-human relationship?
Lee: As far as "scaling out" is concerned, a similar view can be taken with the expression, "the arm of God," which, when scaled up, has nothing to do with an actual arm as we experience it.
Tom: Oh but it has everything to do with our experience of actual arms. Our experience and use of physical arms (to “do,” to “accomplish,” to “perform,” even to “strike,” “defend,” etc.) is what makes “arm” an appropriate metaphor for God in the first place. Our experience of “arm” is the road which the meaning of “the arm of God” travels on. If “God’s arm” has nothing to do with an actual arm as WE experience it, then the phrase “God’s arm” can reveal nothing about God to us. Do we agree on this much, Lee?
Lee: A change of response can involve no change of plan.
Tom: I’ll concede this, though I can’t think of an example off hand. Depending on the plan and the response of course, then I’d say it could be possible.
Lee: … if the threatened judgment was known to produce the response of repentance, which is why God sent Jonah, and why Jonah was reluctant to go.
Tom: This looks to me that you’re admitting the “response” was “planned” (and presumably, planned from eternity). For you, response IS plan. So when God responds to Israel’s repentance and “changes his mind” about destroying them, you can say God didn’t really change his “mind” or “plan.” But I’d add that he didn’t really “personally” respond either. If God genuinely “planned” to destroy them and later changed his mind about this, then his response involved a change of plan (mind, will, volition).
Lee: Changes of response are real changes, it seems to me, since the response God has to repentance at Nineveh was different after they repented. The reciprocal nature of the divine-human relationship is part of God's plan, I would say, intended by him, and incorporated into his design. Our choices do not surprise God, but they are real choices we make.
Tom: If they’re part of God’s plan, then responses, God’s and ours, ARE the plan. On a certain level we can call these real changes I suppose. When a car is put together on an assembly line by machines, the machines “respond.” The car “changes.” At the interpersonal level, however, we wouldn’t admit that such preplanned changes and responses are the “stuff” relationships of integrity are made of.
Let me toss in something Mephi wrote (Raging Debate, “A question for the pros.” 8/26/02) that I think explains what I’m trying to get at:quote:
But here's the thing. Open view theists are NOT saying anything like this. First of all, they are not making the notion that the power of choice is INDEPENDENT of human mental states. They would AGREE with compatibilists on this score. But here's the problem. Compatibilists are approaching the whole things PSYCHOLOGICALLY while the chief open view presupposition is approaching this from a more METAPHYSICAL vantage point. How so? Open view theists say that a person cannot be said to be free unless the origin of choices PRIMARILY emerges from said person...and not from ANY OTHER force or being (including God). This introduces the metaphysical claim of a crawlspace that allows for ontological distinction from God facilitated by a locus of EFFICACIOUS AUTONOMY from God. The seat of the human essence. Compatibilists, on the other hand, basically say that even though human decisions can emerge PRIMARILY from God (via exhaustive definition foreknowledge and its implications), since the decisions emerge SECONDARILY from the human's mental states and desires, those decisions can be considered "free" in the meaningful sense that we phenomenologically understand. Therefore, NO metaphysical crawlspace for ontological differentiation is deemed necessary.
What's the drive, though? Simply this. Open view theists want to say that the God/human relationship is reciprocal at the most FUNDAMENTAL level of reality. Our interactions are not merely phenomenological FOR US...but also existent for God as well. And the only way to do that logically is to posit the "crawlspace" of freedom. Compatibilists cannot do this, and therefore cannot TRULY say that God/human relationships are authentically reciprocal ON ALL LEVELS.
Lee: How about "unlike what we experience," instead of "untrue." The qualification is to keep us from saying that God's experience and our experience are the same, but an analogy is still appropriate.
Tom: How about “both like and unlike”? Peel away the human imperfections of the way we experience the metaphor and leave what’s rest to describe God. God’s experience and ours, then are still, as you say, not “the same,” but they’re still similar, which is what analogies are. But I don’t see that you leave any similarity upon which we are able to embrace “God changed his mind” as meaningfully revealing God to us.
Lee: Changing his mind = changing his response. Regretting previous decisions = emotional reaction to sin. These are not opposites, though, it seems to me.
Tom: The equals sign is confusing me. Are you comparing or contrasting? Not sure. Certainly human regret for previous decisions is often an emotional reaction to sin. The sinful “way” we regret previous choices certainly can’t carry over to God. I concede that if there is absolutely no meaningful way for us to conceive of regretting previous decisions without avoiding such sinfulness, then “regretting previous choices” cannot in the least apply to God. But of course, I’ll also have to admit that Gen. 6.5-6 reveals to me nothing about God’s feelings about his choice to create humans (about which the text actually claims to tell us something). Luckily, I think we can conceive of regretting previous decisions without that regret being an emotional reaction to sin. I think we do this all the time. Can you think of any examples?
Tom (earlier): How does one know, for example, that “God loves” is not equally as anthropomorphic as “God regrets”?
Lee: “God loves" is indeed far beyond our experiences of loving others, and in that sense is anthropomorphic. But it means much more than what we mean, not less, and certainly not the opposite of "man loves." [italics mine]
Tom: Eureka! You struck gold brother! Hallelujah! Gather up folks, the drinks are on me!
Carry this same reasoning over to “God expected what did not come to pass,” “God regretted making humanity,” “God changed his mind,” “God led the Jews the long way through the desert because he said [to himself!], ‘They might (why would God think in “maybes” to himself?) face war, might become discouraged, and might return to Egypt’,” and cash in your gold discovery! God may be infinitely more than he is described in such passages as these, but he is not—you said it—less than or contrary to these passages describe him to be. That’s all open theists want to claim.
Worship well,
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Edited by - TGB on 08/28/2002 05:24:50 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/28/2002 2:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Just passing through quickly, Tom (and Lee; "Hi.") so I'm not up to speed with this all above. But here is a portion that caught my eye:
quote:
Lee: Changes of response are real changes, it seems to me, since the response God has to repentance at Nineveh was different after they repented. The reciprocal nature of the divine-human relationship is part of God's plan, I would say, intended by him, and incorporated into his design. Our choices do not surprise God, but they are real choices we make.
Tom: If they’re part of God’s plan, then responses, God’s and ours, ARE the plan. On a certain level we can call these real changes I suppose. When a car is put together on an assembly line by machines, the machines “respond.” The car “changes.” At the interpersonal level, however, we wouldn’t admit that such preplanned changes and responses are the “stuff” relationships of integrity are made of.
I like what Lee said. But where Tome says "they ... are the plan" that is not quite right. Partial, but not whole. The community of God and man together is the plan, but then you have to throw the fall in on top of that. The fall did not destroy everything. The Calvinist "total/pervasive depravity" is a good analogy. (Marriage was not destroyed.) But to repeat; though the "plan" continued, and the plan was "very good" it has to be looked at understanding that the fall had occurred. The route became more circuitous and with its own intermediary goals pertaining to repentance, revelation and the unfolding of the economy within history.
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 08/28/2002 07:03:30 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/29/2002 1:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Al: I like what Lee said. But where Tome says "they ... are the plan" that is not quite right. Partial, but not whole.
Tom: And this makes a difference? Obviously, God’s responses, if eternally planned, are only part of the plan. My responses, eternally planned, are part of the plan. Together with everything else that happens in the universe, all is planned. The plan has parts, yes, but nothing happens in the way of responses that is not eternally planned. That’s my point.
Al: The community of God and man together is the plan…
Tom: Well, I certainly think that’s the plan. But if all aspects, response, give-and-take, is pre-planned in totality and unconditionally by God alone then I wouldn’t call it a “community.” Would you?
Al: …but then you have to throw the fall in on top of that. The fall did not destroy everything.
Tom: You don’t have to “throw in” the fall “on top of” anything. From Calvin’s point of view the fall was part of the plan. It didn’t interrupt anything. It doesn’t get tossed “on top of” what God was otherwise planning to do. That’s Calvin, Al. I don’t want to dehumanize the man, but I’m interested in knowing if his views on this (and others who agree with him today) are correct. What do you think?
Al: The route became more circuitous and with its own intermediary goals pertaining to repentance, revelation and the unfolding of the economy within history.
Tom: Do you think this change of routing, this circuitousness, was unconditionally “planned” by God? Is it part of the plan? Did God, without reference to anything outside himself, alone determine history would unfold the way it did as opposed to any other way? Yes or No? Do you not have an opinion? Are you not sure? Are you uncomfortable coming down on any one particular side of this issue? I’m just trying to understand.
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Edited by - TGB on 08/29/2002 06:06:33 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/29/2002 12:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: You don’t have to “throw in” the fall “on top of” anything. From Calvin’s point of view the fall was part of the plan. It didn’t interrupt anything. It doesn’t get tossed “on top of” what God was otherwise planning to do. That’s Calvin, Al. I don’t want to dehumanize the man, but I’m interested in knowing if his views on this (and others who agree with him today) are correct. What do you think?
(Who am I?): That's one reason I'm not a Calvinist. But just as Wolterstorff cautions those of us who like to take communion every week from being to hard on Zwinglii -- who at least got people who had been afraid of taking it AT ALL (!) to begin taking it four times a year... We have to put Calvin in context. What's the context. Glad you asked!
Zwinglii was actually (according to Lossky) more Orthodox than Calvin in the Realism of his view of the Eucharist. (Calvin "spiritualizes" it a bit; but at least reintroduces the Holy Spirit into the liturgy!!!) CALL WHAT ZWINGLII DID "PASTORAL." Give him points, and an account at Starbucks. (or something more PC)
Calvin deserves Mocha Java too!!! His context was Augustine. I know less than you Tom. But with a predestined depravity the norm, Calvin did a lot of cleaning up to get to the point where Smedes can take him without doing violence to the spirit of what Calvin intended.
!!!!!
| | Back to Top | | |
| 61 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:19 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|