 |
| 
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/15/2002 10:06 AM (GMT -6) |   | After commenting on the passage where God tells Hezekiah he is going to die (and then adds 15 years to his life) Geisler says:
"Moreover, interpretative analogy demands that we interpret texts about God changing his mind in a similiar way to texts about God forgetting. To apply the same interpretative strategy neotheists use here, we must assume that God has some form of divine Alzheimer's disease? Why should we take God changing his mind literally here and elsewhere but insist that His forgetfulness is merely metaphorical?"
Does he have a point? How would this be answered? Should both be taken the same way? And why not? Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/15/2002 10:54 AM (GMT -6) | | WD, I think that he has a point.
"Changing his mind" in the forum of my own homelife doesn't have to entail a complete recasting of everything. I can change my mind and add grated cheese based on other events over which I did not exercise control.
Seems to me that is what the man meant. What I've just suggested is, even so, a "kind" of literal "changing"; but not in the manner that some would use the word to mean. (Like changing one's mind about a diet.)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/16/2002 6:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Why should we not recast Giesler's argument like this:
"Moreover, interpretative analogy demands that we interpret texts about God changing his mind in a similiar way to texts about God [loving us]. .... Why should we take God [loving us] literally here and elsewhere but insist that His [changing his mind] s merely metaphorical?"
The point is that the analogy between changing God's mind and God forgetting only works if one has decided that God changing his mind FITS INTO THE CATEGORY of anthropomorphic things (like God forgetting) in a way that God LOVING US does not. It's circular.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/16/2002 7:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Then how should we take the verses about God forgetting? Is there any sense in which God can willfully forget?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/16/2002 7:18 AM (GMT -6) | | So, Doc, what you are saying is that each verse must be taken on its own and there is no set rule about how verses can be interpreted generally?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/16/2002 8:32 AM (GMT -6) | | I am VERY impressed with The Doc's paraphrase of G. I'd hope that if they were in the same room that they would both agree. The reason I equivocated a bit by posing two versions of "change" was to try and undo unnecessary polarization. For that same cause, I applaud Doc's shrift.
Here's another thought...
The record on Hezekiah is a royal court document. (as are much of the scriptures). So... Official "remembering" is much different than what a young girl might write in her diary, or two geezers might chew over a beer. Official "remembrances" are law. "Forgetting" is forgiveness. I STRONGLY think that this "court" language and habits must be kept on the table in such a discussion.
Interestingly, "loving" can be used in that setting too.
.....................
I attended a funeral yesterday. (A humble man from a modest church; and one of about thirty of us in our Sunday School class.) The pastor said the great man was one of the "five nicest people in Illinois"--it not mattering who the other four were. Unseen philanthropy, of money and time. Industry above all legislated safety practices, and hiring non-believers to influence them. Giving a church building to an immigrant group. Board member for four Chicago area hospitals, and Dupage Airport commission. Tutor immigrant kids while parents busy in ESL. Move furniture to give to those in need with his pickup (at age 70). Selling Kewanis peanuts in the rain (at 71). GENEROUS WITH HIS RESOURCES, TALENTS, ADVICE WHEN ASKED, AND HIS TIME. Wednesday night, visiting his wife and family at the funeral home sere several State Reps. a State Senator, the State's Attorney General and The Governor and Mrs. of The State of Illinois. The pastor told the story of Charlamagne's funeral. That great man came born to the Cathedral to the door where stood the Bishop. That pastor asked "who comes." The Harold proclaimed: Charlamagne the Magnificent, ruler of the Holy Empire. The Pastor said, "I know him not." The harold winced, and said, "Charles the Great, King." No entrance extended. In low tones, lower than the station of his dress the harold then spoke on behalf of the deceased: "Just Charles, a sinner." "Enter," said the Pastor for the Church.
............................
Love. The greatest of these is Love.
Reading the scripture verses for this funeral, writerdad, I was struck by all of the mind-changing that God does. Constantly. Scripture does not portray God as (1) determining, nor as (2) making a few emergency repairs at the last minute to get things back on track. (Which I think might describe both sides of the debate from a few years ago.) Rather, these scriptures describe God as working with us.
These three scriptures are not "court" statements. They reveal the Personal God.
quote:
Psalm 121 (NIV) A song of ascents.
1 I lift up my eyes to the hills-
where does my help come from?
2 My help comes from the Lord ,
the Maker of heaven and earth.
3 He will not let your foot slip-
he who watches over you will not slumber;
4 indeed, he who watches over Israel
will neither slumber nor sleep.
5 The Lord watches over you-
the Lord is your shade at your right hand;
6 the sun will not harm you by day,
nor the moon by night.
7 The Lord will keep you from all harm-
he will watch over your life;
8 the Lord will watch over your coming and going
both now and forevermore.
quote:
Isaiah 25: 6-9 (NIV)
6 On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare
a feast of rich food for all peoples,
a banquet of aged wine-
the best of meats and the finest of wines.
7 On this mountain he will destroy
the shroud that enfolds all peoples,
the sheet that covers all nations;
8 he will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears
from all faces;
he will remove the disgrace of his people
from all the earth.
The Lord has spoken.
9 In that day they will say,
"Surely this is our God;
we trusted in him, and he saved us.
This is the Lord , we trusted in him;
let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation."
quote:
Psalm 139 (vs.1-10, 13-18)
1 O Lord , you have searched me
and you know me.
2 You know when I sit and when I rise;
you perceive my thoughts from afar.
3 You discern my going out and my lying down;
you are familiar with all my ways.
4 Before a word is on my tongue
you know it completely, O Lord .
5 You hem me in-behind and before;
you have laid your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
too lofty for me to attain.
7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand.
When I awake,
I am still with you.
The pastor said, "IF this man is in heaven......" explaining that for the community of faith this is not ours to determine.
I reflect on the fact, that: It is Christ who is the door. The Person of Christ.
Our Personal God.
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 08/16/2002 2:08:03 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
yankee
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 8/20/2002 9:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear Writerdad and everyone else,
So essentially a point that Mr. Geisler is trying to make is that since I do as a matter of fact take texts about God forgetting in a literal manner that I therefore worship a feeble old God who forgets things because his memory just isn't as sharp as it used to be. Surely one would think that Mr. Geisler would be smart enough to realize that there is a world of difference between a feeble old God who forgets due to alzheimer's or just plain old feeble mindedness and a God who in his sovereignty exercizes a complete mastery over his own omniscience and only forgets when forgetting is what He chooses to do. So often when I read the writings of those who are critical of the open view I find myself asking myself if the desire these men feel to silence the voices of open view advocates is stronger than the desire they feel to give to the reader's of their writings a truly honest and accurate account of what open view advocates believe and teach about God. I wonder sometimes if they are thinking to themselves, " Perhaps if we can convince our readers that the God of the open view is a feeble old God who doesn't know things because He isn't smart enough and that He can't keep things under control because of man's free will then perhaps they will never bother to read the writings of open view theists and we will have succeeded in silencing their voices.". In all honesty I must admit that blanket accusations and crudely crafted arguments make it difficult for me to feel the kind of respect for these men that others feel for these men. By the way, it pleases me to say that I recently found out that I am not the only open view advocate who affirms that God is able to limit his knowledge of present and past tense realities. I found out that Bob Enyart also teaches this. I just recently finished listening to a six cassette collection he made entitled, "Predestination & Free Will" and I thoroughly enjoyed it. He also affirms that God is able to withdraw his presence from wherever He doesn't want for his presence to be. It seems to me that most open view theists would apparantly believe that such attributes as omniscience, omnipresence, and all-seeingness must either be the CAUSE of God's divinity or a PART of God's divinity rather than the RESULT of God's divinity. It would seem to work as follows. For example, If omnipresence is the cause of or a part of God's divinity then God cannot remove his presence from anywhere for if He did make himself less than present everywhere He would make himself less than fully divine. If however we see these attributes as the RESULT of his divinity than we begin to see that He is free to do with these attributes whatever He sees fit to do with them and still remain fully divine. Of course He would not see fit to do with them something that would conflict with his perfect character and holiness. In a previous post I asked some questions that I don't think anyone ever answered. I would like to asked them again. In the scriptures we read more than one time God being quoted as saying, "I will REMEMBER your sins and iniquities NO MORE. Since when did "remember no more" ever mean anything else than to FORGET? At what point in time did "remember no more" come to mean "I will never hold them against you"? Since when was it correct to replace the literal definition for "remember no more" with a spiritualized definition and make these verses of scripture say instead, "though of course I will always remember them its just that I won't hold them against you"? It was fundamentalists who taught me that all I have to do to make the Bible say whatever I want is to replace literal definitions for words with spiritualized definitions and that this is precisely what the cults do. By following their advice and sticking to a literal definition for "remember no more" I end up with a belief that contradicts what they believed regarding God's knowledge. Consider what we see in the incarnate Christ. If Christ's knowledge of present tense realities during his time with his disciples was exhaustive, then why did He not see and realize that the fig tree was barren until He got close enough to it to see that it was barren? He desired to find fruit on it and found none so He cursed the tree. If one part of the trinity is capable of limiting his knowledge of present tense realities through the incarnation, then what is there to prevent the first person of the trinity from also limiting his knowledge of present tense realities and perhaps past tense as well? Also if God is capable of doing this through the incarnation, then what is there to prevent Him from being able to do this without becoming incarnate? Perhaps there is someone out there reading this who could answer these questions. I'd love to hear from you all.
Sincerly,
Yankee
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/21/2002 6:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Yankee: most excellant point. I noticed (particularly while reading this book by Geisler) that I sometimes have to stop and pray not to lose respect for him. Quite frankly, I find it a horrid book in places, so full of straw men and flippant remarks. It, sadly, doesn't take its subject seriously in many places. Which, I find, sad, because I do respect much of what Geisler has done. But I believe many scholars feel theathened by open theism, for a couple of reasons. I believe it loosens the hold of "scholars" like Geisler and Ware to dictate to others theology and I believe many hold that only a God who completely controls everything, only that type of God makes them feel secure. Sadly, Geisler is so into philosophy that he almost can't see what scripture says about God. That is truly amazing to me. I truly believe many of the critics are beginning to realize that open theism is strong, it can answer most criticisms (and will answer the ones it cannot right now in the future, given more study) and it won't go away. And that scares them. Instead of seriously considering what we believe, they hunker down in their bunker and fire potshots. Sadly, I think it will only get worse as it goes along. Harold
By the way, I believe Dallas Willard believes God limits his knowledge of the future...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 8/21/2002 6:46 AM (GMT -6) | | If coming to an open view perspective has done anything for me, it has helped me to not be "afraid"; not to be afraid of the unknown about God, not to be afraid of what He might not be of which I thought He was; not to be afraid that I can be wrong in my perspective of God and find that neither I nor God are thrown off our seats!
Man, the open view is not only true to the way we area and the way the God of the Bible is, but it's an assistant to freedom in my walk with God.
For living free from fear in my walk,
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 08/21/2002 11:47:36 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/21/2002 2:55 PM (GMT -6) | | I think Geisler's point could have been made with a stronger analogy, if we view other more obvious anthropomorphisms (such as "God's arm") in the same light as his changing his mind. Which brings me to a favorite point, if we view God's arm as a concept that needs to be scaled up from what we experience, how can the concept of changing our mind be scaled up from what we experience when we do this?
And to address Doc's point that this is circular reasoning, I would say that this is reasoning by analogy, instead.
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)
Edited by - Lee Merrill on 08/21/2002 7:58:03 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 8/21/2002 5:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Writerdad,
This doesn't reply to your original topic, but to your last post.
If I ever got back in to academics, I would like to write a book on Evangelical argument. The inspiration was actually the CT debate on the Open View which I thought fairly modeled a Christian style of argument. I used to teach the Luther/Calvin debate on Free Will and still feel that Luther's style of agressive but fair-minded argument is a good example for today.
As you point out, Geisler and numerous other OV opponents adopt a very un-charitable style of argument that obfuscates the issues and builds fallacy upon fallacy. (I say this as someone who still thinks such critics have some weight to their case, not as someone wholy enamored by all aspects of the Open View.)
Also, in being repeatedly blasted by this mean-spirited, logic-assaulting, personally attacking, misrepresenting, and clearly un-Christ-like form of argument, some of the recent responses of OV proponents have been snottier and more defensive than I'd like. And no, I'm not referring to Boyd (may your tribe increase, Doc!).
Harold, I loved your solution of praying for the author and that you would read his words in love. My wife and I pray for Doc most every day, in part because I disagee with him on some issues (but mostly because I suspect he gets more than his share of spiritual attacks).
Quick story: I wanted to teach a Sunday School class on Christian argument, then extend out to other forms of Christian interaction (ethics and judgement, the use of spiritual gifts, the 'correct' style of worship, the dynamics of small group studies).
Instead, I was more or less 'assigned' a topic--David Well's _Losing Our Virtue: Why the Church Must Recover Its Moral Vision_. Think of it as anti-Bonhoeffer. It could be subtitled "Why the Church should be driven by the Knowledge of Good and Evil". Oy. Rather than discuss how we should relate, we begin with an assumption and move on to promote it as the Truth and One View.
Now I've moved from discussing into meddling. So I'll sign off.
Terry
P.S. (I'm big into postscripts lately) Wells does say some good things about separating the church culture from modernist cultural trends, so it's not all fire and brimstone stuff. I also told them we'll used Wells' book as a 'launching pad' for some discussions, but our real text will be biblical passages about virtue, etc.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/21/2002 10:43 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
...if we view God's arm as a concept that needs to be scaled up from what we experience, how can the concept of changing our mind be scaled up from what we experience when we do this?
By removing the imperfections that attend to our expereience of these. If God’s “eyes” reveals to us her intimate and unmediated knowledge of all things, and if God's “right arm” reveals her incomparable power to accomplish what she 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?
Now, we do "scale up" "arm" and "eyes" when seeking to interpret them as anthropomoprhism which reveal some truth about God. We do this by leaving out the human imperfections that accompany "knowing" (i.e., seeing) and doing (i.e., bearing one's arm). Seems pretty clear what those imperfections are. Our sight/knowledge of things can be wrong, prejudice, or partial. We can be, metaphorically speaking, short-sighted, near-sighted, or cross-eyed. In scaling up our understanding of an anthropomophism, these imperfections of "sight" are removed. They don't apply to God. BUt there's still something left which does apply. They same with God's "right arm." Our arm/strength can be weak, insufficient, overpowering and destructive, and insensitive. In sclaing this up, these imperfections don't apply to God. But there's still something left which does apply.
Carrying this over to God "changing her mind." I think we scale this up by recognizing that the imperfections which attend to OUR changes of mind don't apply to God. She's not fickle, selfishly motivated, double-minded, insecure, undecided, etc. etc.. But when we recognize the imperfections of how and why we change our minds, we need to be left with something analagous in the metaphor that truthfully reveals God. However, if we begin by claiming that God cannot change her mind, then the category "changes of mind" by definition cannot apply to God, at least not in a way we can undertand. And if it doesn't apply to God in a way we can undertand, then it's impossible to argue that it "reveals" God to us.
Just my thoughts.
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
yankee
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 8/22/2002 2:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear TGB,
I know that what I'm about to ask does not pertain to this particular thread but I'm going to ask it anyway. Do you as an Assembly of God missionary or minister or whatever it is that God called you to be really believe that God is a woman? Do you really believe that even though Jesus always referred to him as Father and never as Mother? Could it be that you are just using female pronouns to raise some eyebrows? What's going on here Tom?
Sincerly,
Yankee
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/22/2002 5:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I know that what I'm about to ask does not pertain to this particular thread but I'm going to ask it anyway. Do you as an Assembly of God missionary or minister or whatever it is that God called you to be really believe that God is a woman? Do you really believe that even though Jesus always referred to him as Father and never as Mother? Could it be that you are just using female pronouns to raise some eyebrows? What's going on here Tom?
Yankee-
You deserve a better answer than I can probably give, but I’ll try to explain why I sometimes refer to God with feminine pronouns. Lord knows, it has nothing to do with the A/G or my being a missionary. It does has something to do with what I’m “called” to do. I’ll try to explain.
I don’t believe God is a woman. Of course, I don’t believe he’s a man either. I’m also aware that Jesus never used feminine pronouns. There are of course feminine metaphors used for God in Scripture. God didn’t seem to have a problem with this much. What the justified implications of this use of feminine metaphors might have for how we talk and refer to God might be, I really don’t know.
I sometimes use feminine pronouns to refer to God for myself really. I don’t do it for anybody else I don’t think. Certainly not to raise eyebrows. I don’t mean to come across that way. Sorry. Before I decided to try it, I reasoned like this:
God is neither female nor male. Actually, human beings, male AND female, together possess and reflect the image of God.
Secondly, women and men are different. REALLY different. We think differently, interpret and experience life differently, etc.. One day it dawned on me that this difference is a good thing. God’s behind it. It also dawned on me that if women and men really see, interpret, and experience life differently, then they experience God differently. (I’m not saying there isn’t any similarity in our experiences of God; I’m just saying there are fundamental differences.)
Thirdly, if we interpret and experience life differently and experience God differently, then there’s something for me as a man to learn about life and God from the experience of a woman. Makes sense. Good male sense! Anyhow, others have chronologed better than I could how the history of God-talk (theology) has been dominated by men. Men talking about God. Men telling us what God is like. Men telling us what experiencing God is like, which means of course that we’ve gone for centuries without listening to women talk about their experience of life and God, which, if men and women interprete life and experience God in unique ways, also means that there's something about God that I'm missing. There’s something for me to learn from listening to women talk about their experience of life and God. And I wanna hear that. (There's more to say here, but I'll have to leave it at that for now.)
I think that’s why I sometimes (only a few times on this board that I can remember) refer to God with feminine pronouns. I’m reminding myself that there’s more to life and God than I as a man see or experience. The feminine pronoun is my way of reminding myself (and maybe other men, I don’t know) that women reflect the image of God and experience God differently than men do.
Feminine pronouns for God may be an illegitimate thing to do. I honestly don’t know. It might not be wise. Maybe it’s the first step on a slippery slope to asking my wife to burn her bra and vote for Al Gore. Oh God I hope not.
But I felt safe enough here on this site to try it. It felt weird at first. But now it’s not even an issue. And that bothers me too! Because I’ve proved that using or not using feminine pronouns for God doesn’t necessarily mean I’ve entered, or even tried to enter, into a woman’s experience of faith in God. I’ve learned that it’s not about language. It can (not must, but probably most of the time does) show up in our language. But it’s not just about language. It’s about taking time and making room for HER worldview. I can’t do that on this site. I thought that calling God “she” was all I had to do. That would mean I had understood her world and appreciated the unique ways she experiences God. But it didn’t. It happens when I take my gal’s hand in prayer, or talk to her over dinner, or sit with the guitar and worship with her on the porch really “wanting” to hear her talk about life and faith. Now, calling God “she” just reminds me that I need to do these things. And I am “called” to do that.
Not very theological I know.
Tom 
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Edited by - TGB on 08/22/2002 10:26:23 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/22/2002 5:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Would people be offended if we called God "It"? I wonder. The masculine and feminine descriptions ain't necessarily with it. and I don't like using "God" and "Godself" all the time. I'm comfortable with "It". Whatcha think?
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/22/2002 5:31 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Would people be offended if we called God "It"? I wonder. The masculine and feminine descriptions ain't necessarily with it. and I don't like using "God" and "Godself" all the time. I'm comfortable with "It". Whatcha think?
I'm not sure if you're serious or not dude!
Personally, I'd be offended. "It" denies God's essential personhood. God's image is revealed in humankind, men and women. "We" are persons. "It" is not. Just switch back and forth between "he" and "she," Mephi. Give it a try!
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/22/2002 6:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Well said Tom. I respect your reasons for using inclusive language. Personally, I tend to avoid all personal pronouns for God partly because English doesn't have a nueter or inclusive and partly for another theological reason: God is God. This sounds rediculously simple on one level, but theologians as influential as Barth have stated their whole system in that way. God is not like us in more ways than God is like us. For me this avoidance of personal pronouns helps me remind myself that God is really "other" than me, or my wife. I do enjoy the benefit of not tagging God as male, and if I were to use a pronoun I'd tend towards feminine, just to sort of balance the history of the conversation, as you alluded to.
I agree that "IT" is not hlepful, but my objection to it is principly the way "IT" objectifies God more radically than simly saying God or using a personal pronoun. There are languages that do have nueter personal pronouns, I wonder if we should just borrow one of those and import it into English?
I sometimes refer to God as "divine community" as well, it depends on in what context I am speaking of God. Godself is admittedly unusual, but I have gotten used to it. When I am required to use "he" (incidentally, it never happens that I am required to use "she"), I at least refrain from capitolizing the personal pronoun. This is a way of recognizing that the "he-ness" is not what is under discussion.
Interesting stuff....
The ONLY semi-persuasive argument that I have ever encountered FOR using "He" exclusively is that a femine image of God could potentially encourage pantheism, where creation is thought of as birthed by God. This is not all that persuasive though if we consider the alternative, did God's maleness (sexually speaking) really serve as a central metaphor for the God/world creation? The more we consider it, the worse it gets, the incarnation would then be considered a form of penetration. The theological/metaphyscal arguments for maleness of God don't really help the issue at all. In fact, they are part of what encourages me to move away from pronouns that are sexually loaded. They produce weird stuff when God is considered under the condition of some sexual identification.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 8/22/2002 8:55 AM (GMT -6) | |
quote:
Also, in being repeatedly blasted by this mean-spirited, logic-assaulting, personally attacking, misrepresenting, and clearly un-Christ-like form of argument, some of the recent responses of OV proponents have been snottier and more defensive than I'd like. And no, I'm not referring to Boyd (may your tribe increase, Doc!).
Hey Terry,
I love Doc and all, in fact, I would say God's work through him increased my faith and greatly inspired me to graduate and pastoral work. Nevertheless, while you seem to be throwing a compliment (e.g. "I'm not referring to Boyd (may your tribe increase, Doc!)," this seems to be implying that Boyd has a "tribe" or followers (e.g. maybe Boydians, as has been mentioned by others in the past); heck, as an Open Theist I've actually been called a Boydian back in my Bethel College days. Nevertheless, I can't imagine anyone would want to be a follower of Boyd (YUK), but rather, a follower of Christ. Now, maybe I've misunderstood you, and if I have I'm sorry, truly!
Honestly, I've loved your style on this board, and I've enjoyed your interaction with others, God Bless Ya Brother !
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 | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/22/2002 9:02 AM (GMT -6) | | NO! The Prince of Darkness will NOT bow to the idol of political correctness! Meph will call God it, he, she or THEY, if he so chooses (just because many people conceptualize the Biblical God in a tritheistic manner anyway!) Meph will continue to affirm that God transcends ALL language in It's/His/Her/Their big "Cloud of Unknowing" and therefore can be hailed by ANY pronoun! And Meph will continue to talk in third person like the Rock and commence to lay the smackdown on all candy-*#& theologians who think I shouldn't! Meph has spoken...so shall it be!!!!!
Uh...does this show I was just messin' around, Tom?  [
Um...er..um...YEAH! Bow down, tree huggin hippies!! So says IT...or HE...or whatever!
Trippin' like what,
| | Back to Top | | |
|
yankee
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 8/22/2002 10:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear TGB,
Thank you for your honest reply. As for me I believe that God is both Spirit and masculine even though it may be hard for me to understand how a spirit can be this way. My belief is not motivated out of any belief in male superiority. My belief is simply motivated out of a desire to remain faithful to the scriptures and yes your way of thinking may be motivated by the same desire but only you can really know the desire of your own heart. Being someone who comes from a segment of Christianity that is known for it's strong emphasis on the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture I have a desire to see the open view of God given greater consideration amongst conservatives. Last I knew the Assemblies of God is a conservative fellowship. I once attended an AG church as a matter of fact. Having been raised under staunch conservativism I do know well how the mind of the conservative works. I myself am quite conservative though there are those who are even more conservative than I. I know that if a conservative was to take a notion to read the writings of open view advocates and goes to a nearby Bible store and finds one of their books and first notices that a gender neutral translation is being used the conservative will probably immediatly put the book right back on the shelf and conclude that the author is probably a liberal who is more interested in making the christian faith more acceptable to sinners than he is interested in remaining faithful to the scriptures. Liberals and moderates will read the writings of open view advocates even if the only Bible being used is the King James. If open view advocates want a maximum number of conservatives and staunch conservatives to read their books then I would reccomend that they use the same Bible translations that the conservatives use. The more that we try to make the open view appeal to popular culture the more that we will limit it's spread to liberals and moderates only. I will admit to you that it disturbs me when I find on this website a great emphasis on the importance of what we believe in our hearts agreeing with what our sense of logic demands must be true. When I read the web sites and writings of the Reformed crowd I find that they take no interest whatsoever in trying to offer to this world a christianity that agrees with both heart and head. I find that they take no interest whatsoever in trying to offer to this world a christianity that is custom designed to be acceptable with popular culture. I find that their emphasis is on offering to this world a christianity that is God focused and Bible focused and not make it acceptable to our popular culture focused. I have to admit that I admire the Reformed crowd for this even though I believe their beliefs to be polluted with Greek philosopy. I would love to see the open view gain greater ground amongst conservatives and staunch conservatives but I doubt it will ever gain much ground unless we take a lesson from the Reformed crowd and shift our focus away from what popular culture wants christianity to be and shift it back to the authority of the scriptures.
Sincerly,
Yankee
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/22/2002 12:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Is there one Bible (translation) conservatives use? If so, I haven't heard of it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/22/2002 2:00 PM (GMT -6) | | I believe that what I'm going to say does not effect anything above.
God does not have gender. Yet, there are very real reasons to speak of the Father as Father and not Mother, and the Son as Son. And to speak of the Son as being Begotten and not Proceeding, and the Spirit as Proceeding and not being Begotten. Those are very, very real. Still, God does not have gender.
Amen.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 8/23/2002 6:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Harold,
You've asked people not to hijack your threads. Send me an email or post as much, and i'll delete this. It's still marginally germaine to your topic, though.
Tiggers,
Thanks for the check. I wasn't sensitive to how others may interpret that phrase.
"May his tribe increase" is just an old (corny!) blessing. It was used in a similar context by (I think) Sanders in one of his recent books. I liked it, so I cribbed it. It just means "may there be more like him".
On the other hand, I do know that there is some concern on the apologetics listservs and (subtly) expressed in a few articles that OV has cult-like tendencies.
Now I think most people here would say that Boyd is charismatic (not in the theolgoical sense; he has charisma). Apparently Pinnock has a 'following' and is interpersonally appealing, although I've never interacted with him. Some of the responses on this board border on fawning ("Doc! I never thought that way until you said it!"). Also, from a conservative perspective, OV seems to be practicing a cultic tactic of "the bible says what it's leaders say" or idiosyncratic interpretation.
HOWEVER, from my perspective, the idea that OV or Boyd's 'followers' or WHC is a cult is nothing more than fearmongering and ad hominem argumentation. As far as I know, Greg Boyd hasn't asked anyone to donate their life savings to him or his ministry. I also believe his interpretive methods and instincts are extremely sound, moreso than most of his critics (although I respect Sproul as well). I only mention it because I believe it always helps to understands ones critics/enemies.
Sorry for the confusion. I'll just say "blessings, Doc!" and leave it at that.
Terry
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/23/2002 7:51 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
NO! The Prince of Darkness will NOT bow to the idol of political correctness! Meph will call God it, he, she or THEY, if he so chooses (just because many people conceptualize the Biblical God in a tritheistic manner anyway!)...Meph has spoken...so shall it be!!!!!
Get thee behind me Prince of Darnkess! Bow down I say! Bow before the maximally personal being who isn't in the slightest represented by an "it"! Bow I saw. Bow low and repent!
quote:
Uh...does this show I was just messin' around, Tom? [
You bet! 
Tom
"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 8/23/2002 10:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Ah! We must add that it is not gender to which is refered when we attribute the pronounds He/She to God. (Okay, Mephi is, but, well, that's Meph (just kiddin' ya, Meph.) it is the quality of masculinity and femini . . . femnimnit . . . that word.
Rather, these pronouns say something of God's characteristics as both masculine and feminin. (You know, even if it took 10 years to transfer over to a spelling of the English language which makes sense, I'd sure appreciated it--I can't spell!)
Anyway, where was I? (I apparently also need one of those mega-mall directories with the "You are here" on it. I can't get anything right today!)
So, that said . . . well, I'm done.
(I dread the rest of this day if this is what I'm in for!)
For absolute convolution,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
| 61 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:00 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 |
|
|