 |
| 
JCsites.com
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 169
| Posted 1/13/2003 6:01 PM (GMT -6) |   | What does the arminean (sp?) view say about the problem of evil? The reason I ask is because I'm guessing that only the calvinist view approaches the problem of evil with the notion that God is in control to the point of allowing the evil to happen. Piper mentions sanctification so I suppose that God allows evil to befall us so that we will be sanctified.
Anyway, I'm asking if the arminean view has the same "God allows evil" approach because I'm thinking the arminean view offers a different answer.
So...
Really Piper should be saying that Armineans and Open Theists are encouraging idolitry. Get my point?
Maybe I'm just ignorant. Wouldn't be the first time! 
But if I'm correct in my assumption about the arminean view and what Piper should be saying, then in my opion, this article of his is clearly meant as an attempt to tear down an idea instead of an attempt to pursue truth.
I mean, does Piper now want to accuse those who subscribe to arminean theology as being heretics? That seems to be what he's saying about Open Theists, and if my logic is correct then he's accidently saying that about armineans.
My understanding is that the old calvinism/arminean debates have settled to a mutual respect. An agreement to disagree and state that neither view is herecy.
I know I'm definately not the brightest bulb on this board. And my theology training is a small margin above (If I may be so bold) the "average" Christian. So maybe I'm mixed up on what the arminean view is. Shoot I'm not sure I can spell Arminean!
I just thougth I'd stick my neck out and share my thinking. The article bothered me.
I hope this post doesn't come across too personal. I have actually read many of Piper's books and have found value in all of them. I've spoken with him personally and been blessed by that. I admire his strong sense of justice and truth. I just don't agree that OV is herecy that's all. And since he wrote the article I thougth it would be fair to react to what he wrote.
Anyway, I humbly accept any corrections or critisms anyone might have to share. After all, I need to learn and that's why I'm on this board!
JC Sites guy
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/13/2003 6:24 PM (GMT -6) | | The Piper article so baffles me, I hardly know where to begin.
Random thoughts....
If one defines "idolatry" as "not accepting that everything that comes from you is from the hand of God," then Piper's article makes a point (though, as noted, it makes it as much against Arminians as against Open Theists). But why accept this presupposition about idolatry? Why accept that every event is "a test" of idolatry?
Who was being tested in the nightmare we discovered last week of the three kids who were beaten and starved to death? The mother? The kids? Us?
Why must we accept that if God doesn't ordain event, he can't have a "purpose" in the event? Isn't it limiting of God to say that he has to ordain an event to bring a purpose to it? Couldn't an open theists pass Piper's "idolatry test" just by trusting that God can bring a purpose to an event without ordaining it? Couldn't an infinitely wise God forsee all POSSIBILITIES and anticipate a use for each of them without the need to secure ahead of time which possibility will be actualized? Isn't it an idolatrous limitation on God to suppose that he has to secure the future in this way in order to have a wise response to it?
Couldn't one argue that it is idolatry to get life from the need to feel secure in a world by construing God as omni-controlling, even if this entails tracing every kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered child back to God's wise counsel? Couldn't one argue that it is idolatry to NOT trust that God is able to bring good out of evil UNLESS he controls all that happens?
And isn't "idolatry" a matter of the heart anyway? Can one be an idolater "by accident"? Isn't idolatry choosing to treat something as god that is not God?
Then again... maybe these charges of "idolatry" are really unnecessary and unhelpful. Perhaps we should take each others theology on THEIR own terms without reading into them all the implications WE think THEY imply IN TERMS OF OUR OWN THEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS.
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/14/2003 12:16 AM (GMT -6) | | SIM-
What a huuuuuuuuge issue. I’ve started this sentence ten times and started over! Arrghhhh.
I believe God endowed us with libertarian free will. I believe such freedom is necessary if God is to hold us morally responsible for our actions. For such free will to have been genuinely “given,” it cannot be true that God, as a matter of policy, “controls” it. If he did, then he never really “gave” it to us, did he?
Now, I think this arrangement is a matter of divine “choice.” That is, though God is perfectly “capable” of unilaterally restricting, or even removing, our free will, he doesn’t do so because not doing so is required by the more important goal of creation, and that goal at least includes people freely choosing to love and worship him. That can’t be programmed or “controlled.” Love entails risk, my friend. So, God doesn’t control everything that happens. This, I suggest, is a far better sort of world than one in which everything is controlled by God. God seems to have thought so too, since he decided not to create that sort of world.
Can God sometimes step in and unilaterally restrict somebody’s freedom? Yes. He certain CAN. Does he? Yes, I think he sometimes may. How often and when I don’t think any of us know. But I’d say two things about his doing so (if or when he does so).
First, if God restricts human freedom to guarantee some specific choice or outcome, the agent or agents in question are not morally responsible for the choice. For example, did God unilaterally step into the process to guarantee that Cyrus’ parents named him Cyrus? Let’s assume God did do this. If God did do this, then he will not also hold Cyrus’ Mom and Dad morally responsible for naming him. It’s that simple. This appears to me to include Cyrus’ choice of a vocation, his rise to leadership, and certainly his choice to return the Jews to their lang. This is all fine. In this case, however, God will not hold Cyrus morally responsible for becoming a political leader instead of, say, becoming a plumber or computer programmer. His freedom was restricted. What “kind” of leader Cyrus became (just and honest or abusive and self-serving) was I think NOT unilaterally decided by God and so Cyrus will have some account to give for his actions.
Secondly, there may be other occasions when God steps in to direct the evil choices of persons who have over time hardened themselves against him. Doc and others can enlighten you on this better than I can. But the gist of it is that our free will is finite to begin with. We “spend” it over time. Choices we make when we are young form our habits. Those habits over time form the basis of our character. And eventually our characters determine the kinds of choices we make. This works for good and for bad. People who over time develop habits of thinking and acting that that are godly will over time become solidified, as it were, in righteousness. Mother Theresa would be a good example. What’s the real possibility that as she got on in years she would have given herself to, say, money laundering or trafficking in child slavery? None at all. Conversley, by the time Hitler appeared on the public stage, his character appears to have been pretty fixed in ungodly ways of thinking and behaving.
Here’s the thing, SIM. Like Vincent Brummer said, “if we refuse to be God’s agents, we become his instruments.” If we refuse to cooperate with God in realizing one plan, “our non-cooperation is instrumental in making a new plan possible.” (Did you look up and read the threads on “infinite intelligence”?) So, assuming God knows a particular person to be irreversibly committed to some evil, God may “direct” that act, though it is evil, in a way that better serves his overall purposes, and the agent is responsible. But this cannot be settled upon eternally by God since it requires the person in question to have freely hardened themselves over time.
How God may or does “use” evil is controversial to say the least. Even open theists differ when you get down to it. What seems incorrect to me is to say God determines some evil and restricts freedom in the first sense above to bring it about and that he decides upon all this eternally.
Blessings,
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/14/2003 12:18 AM (GMT -6) | | JCSites-
Hey there!
Piper's article bothered me too.
My understanding is that it IS the Arminian view of God’s foreknowledge which claims that God specifically “permits” or “allows” each evil we experience. Molinists are a bit different, but for the point here that’s OK. When Piper, as a Calvinist, says God has to be believed to have specifically “ordained” or “permitted” evil, he’s talking about Calvinists in the first instance and Arminians in the second. Piper can’t accuse Arminians of being more susceptible to idolatrous living (though I wouldn’t be surprised if he believed it) as he does open theists that would be politically suicidal. Arminians are “in.” They belong to evangelicalism. It’s open theists Piper wants to shut the door on. So, because Calvinists (like Piper) believe God specifically ordains evil, and Arminians believe God specifically “permits” evil (by foreknowing it and deciding on that basis not to prevent it), Piper believes both can still maintain that God specifically uses evil to sanctify us. But because open theists believe evil is neither ordained nor specifically permitted by God, Piper thinks we can’t believe that God can use what evil does happen to bring some good out of it.
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
JCsites.com
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 169
| Posted 1/14/2003 3:57 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB
Thanks for the tutorial! I even know how to spell Arminian now 
I had a hunch I was wrong about what the Arminian view's answer to the problem of evil is. I mean, John Piper is definately an intelligent dude, and I really didn't think he'd commit political suicide either.
Still I thought his article created an "easy straw man" for him to knock down. It resulted in a weak arguement in my opinion. But honestly I had trouble trying to articulate why it's such a weak argument. Then I thought of the possible ramifications with Arminian's.
Anyhow, I read what Dr. Boyd posted and that helped me put my finger on why it's such a weak argument. I certainly agree that if we are to use this as a standard to judge idolitry, then it's equally possible for calvinists to commit Idolitry as well, in the fashion that Dr. Boyd points out.
Oh and for the record.... I like saying "Dr. Boyd" instead of Greg cause it seems so formal and that makes me somehow feel more intelligent.
Anyway, since my assumptions, due to ignorance, about the Arminian view were wrong, I suppose it's only fair to apologize to John Piper for my remarks claiming that he was saying that Arminian's are heretics.
If I'm gonna dish it out, I'd better be able to take it!
JC Sites Guy
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Chucks3371
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 28
| Posted 1/14/2003 4:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Piper can’t accuse Arminians of being more susceptible to idolatrous living (though I wouldn’t be surprised if he believed it) as he does open theists that would be politically suicidal.
Didn't R.C. Sproul claim that "Arminians are Christians by the skin of their teeth"? And a minister at a rather prominent calvinist church in the neighborhood claimed the Missouri river separates them from Arminians. I'm baffled that Arminians can take comments like that as a "welcome mat".
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 1/15/2003 7:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks, Tom, for your comments, and for other comments. It's very helpful!
Dr. Boyd,
You say:Couldn't one argue that it is idolatry to get life from the need to feel secure in a world by construing God as omni-controlling, even if this entails tracing every kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered child back to God's wise counsel? Couldn't one argue that it is idolatry to NOT trust that God is able to bring good out of evil UNLESS he controls all that happens?
Question: Do you believe that God uses ALL evil for a higher purpose? This has been a huge stumbling block for me because I had initally assumed that the Open View did not include this belief. So have I been wrong?
I think that for me, this very thing is what kept me initially from being able to even consider the Open View as a viable Biblical viewpoint.
Thanks for your response.
SIM
"Looking for God--or Heaven--by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare's plays in the hope that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters..." C. S. Lewis
Edited by - SIM on 01/16/2003 12:45:30 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/16/2003 1:15 PM (GMT -6) | | SIM: Question: Do you believe that God uses ALL evil for a higher purpose? This has been a huge stumbling block for me because I had initially assumed that the Open View did not include this belief. So have I been wrong?
Tom: Looks like you’re asking Doc. Hope you don’t mind if I try. 
I think that wherever you find evil at work you find God at work redemptively, either seeking to prevent the evil (which is the greater good) or to bring good out of whatever evil was not prevented. "Wherever sin abouds, grace does much more abound." Does God WANT the sin to abound SO THAT grace can abound? I don't think so. Rom. 8.28 basically says it. In all things (including evil) God is working together for good for those who love him…. The open view simply denies that God has to “ordain” an evil event in order to bring good out of it. So, God “uses” all evil in the sense that no evil occurs in which God is not at work to bring some good out of it (as Rom. 8.28 says, for those who love and cooperate with God), but not in the sense that God specifically ordains the evil “so that” he can bring good out of it. In the former, God responds to an evil he does not will by bringing some good out of it. In the latter, God wills an evil in order to produce some good. The two are very different. So SIM, if you can be satisfied with a God who can bring good out of every evil without having to ordain or specifically permit the evil itself, then as you say, you’re on your way to at least considering the open view.
OK, I’ll shut up. Sorry for butting in. 
Tom
Love never ends
Edited by - TGB on 01/16/2003 7:41:13 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
fyodor
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 1/16/2003 6:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Perhaps the classic view has become idolized in an attempt to defend itself against the open-view. Then Piper would be correct to say that the open view leads to idolatry, might not be what he had in mind though. (jk)
>>>"And even as each one of you stands alone in God's knowledge, so must each one of you be alone in his knowledge of God and in his understanding of the earth." Kahlil Gibran from THE PROPHET | | Back to Top | | |
|
fyodor
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 1/16/2003 6:32 PM (GMT -6) | | SIM: Question: Do you believe that God uses ALL evil for a higher purpose?
I think it would be off to say that God uses ALL evil for a higher porpose. God's purposes are always higher porposes, but I think to say that God uses evil wouldn't describe God's nature accurately. I think it would be more correct to acknowledge that God reacts to evil with his higher purposes. I don't think evil can be be a part of God's nature and therefore using evil is less likely than reacting to evil with actions that are of a higher purpose.
I'm not speaking for the open-view here, just speaking.
>>>"And even as each one of you stands alone in God's knowledge, so must each one of you be alone in his knowledge of God and in his understanding of the earth." Kahlil Gibran from THE PROPHET
Edited by - fyodor on 01/16/2003 11:32:35 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 1/17/2003 6:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Some thoughts: If God knows ALL possible contingencies, and Romans is true,
8:27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes on behalf of the saints according to God's will. 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose
then in my understanding of the open view, its belief is that God is orchestrating each of these individual possible events. Each of these are in the Mind of God, so that nothing can happen that is not known by God in advance.
Starkman: "there simply is no less control on behalf of the Mighty God within the open view than there is within the classical view.
SIM: This certainly seems true,if Starkman is correct in what Open View Theists believe, and therefore my statement above is correct. God's control ENCOMPASSES free will. From the "temporal" viewpoint of God's existence, He cannot know the exact choice "ahead of time", but DOES know the possible choices, which He can then "orchestrate ahead of time" so that whatever happens can work for good.
Tom: Here’s the thing, SIM. Like Vincent Brummer said, “if we refuse to be God’s agents, we become his instruments.” If we refuse to cooperate with God in realizing one plan, “our non-cooperation is instrumental in making a new plan possible.” (Did you look up and read the threads on “infinite intelligence”?) So, assuming God knows a particular person to be irreversibly committed to some evil, God may “direct” that act, though it is evil, in a way that better serves his overall purposes, and the agent is responsible. But this cannot be settled upon eternally by God since it requires the person in question to have freely hardened themselves over time.
SIM: In my understanding, this makes the "practical outcome" of the Open View belief pretty much the same as the outcome of what I believe. My belief is that God knows "ahead of time" (but not temporally, but eternally) what events will take place. But because He is beyond time, in His Eternal perspective, He only sees the events take place AS THEY ARE HAPPENING. And because He knows this ETERNALLY, He can also orchestrate eternally. The Open View believes that God knows ahead of time what will take place because He knows which contingencies are possible, and can therefore prepare for each of them in advance.
Tom:How God may or does “use” evil is controversial to say the least. Even open theists differ when you get down to it. What seems incorrect to me is to say God determines some evil and restricts freedom in the first sense above to bring it about and that he decides upon all this eternally.
And Fyodor:I think it would be off to say that God uses ALL evil for a higher purpose. God's purposes are always higher porposes, but I think to say that God uses evil wouldn't describe God's nature accurately.
SIM: I think there is a mystery in God's "allowance" of evil that we can't humanly understand. Because of Dr. Boyd's recent posts, I reread Job, and was newly amazed at Job's response to suffering in his life, when he didn't have the perspective of the reader as to God's communication with satan. And how God responded to Job's questioning really didn't give him permission at all to question the "Why" of suffering. I know that God the Father loves each of us beyond our ability to comprehend, therefore God knows that knowing His purpose is not to our best interest. Our responsibility is to accept whatever happens and trust Him that everything that happens will EVENTUALLY come to good. That word "eventually" is what's so hard for us in our humanness to grasp. And definitely we must pray for God's covering of protection. I recently went through a personal attack that only ended when I used strategic prayer against the enemy's attack.
(That would be an interesting new thread - our personal accounts of satanic warfare!)
BOTTOM LINE: Except for semantics, I can't see that there's much difference between these two views!
Comments?
SIM
"Looking for God--or Heaven--by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare's plays in the hope that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters..."
C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 1/17/2003 9:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Sim, disregard the post, I misinterpreted you, Ron.
Sim
Some thoughts: If God knows ALL possible contingencies, and Romans is true,
8:27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes on behalf of the saints according to God's will. 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose
then in my understanding of the open view, its belief is that God is orchestrating each of these individual possible events. Each of these are in the Mind of God, so that nothing can happen that is not known by God in advance.
Ron
It is one thing to say "all things work together for good" and another to say "all things work together for good to them who love God, to them who are called according to his purpose" This scriptue is in the context of a believer not knowing how they should pray as they ought and it is telling them we have the Holy Spirit to intercede for us to God in God's will. Then, in that obedient context God works all things together for good. The saying "all things work together for good" has been used for a long time to quench any potential active faith in believers.
Ron Sirkel
Edited by - rsirkel on 01/17/2003 3:10:20 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 1/17/2003 9:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Sim
I read again your post and maybe I was reading too much into it. Sorry, I had a knee jerk reaction and didn't pause to ponder,you seem to be limiting your comments to God working in the context of intercession.
Ron Sirkel | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/17/2003 8:13 PM (GMT -6) | | SIM: In my understanding, this makes the "practical outcome" of the Open View belief pretty much the same as the outcome of what I believe. My belief is that God knows "ahead of time" (but not temporally, but eternally)...
Tom: Hey, you believe in "Pre-recorded Open Theism." Cool.
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/18/2003 5:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Isn't there a grave danger, to BOTH "sides", that in focusing on God "knowing" (by one definition) everything as if they were indipendent of God's continuing providence, and arose independently of his own Word, that a highly unscriptural habit of viewing God, creation, and life will result?
So much attention to whether God "knows everything beforehand" and to whether God "figures everything out due to superintellegence. Both separate God and his Creation in a way that damages our understanding and investegation of both.
God created by his Wisdom and Word. Everything is more shaped by that than by anything else.
When talking about EVERYTHING, try refering FIRST to the Wisdom and Word of God in your considerations.
Al | | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 1/18/2003 4:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks, Al. I appreciate your post. You make a great point on the danger of focusing too much on God's "knowing", and leaving out all of His involvement in every second of our lives. That's the problem with debating just one of God's "attributes". It eventually REDUCES GOD. This is the true idolatry. When we turn to anything other than God Himself, even His SOVEREIGNTY, we begin to reduce God's nature.
Al said:quote:
Isn't there a grave danger, to BOTH "sides", that in focusing on God "knowing" (by one definition) everything as if they were indipendent of God's continuing providence, and arose independently of his own Word, that a highly unscriptural habit of viewing God, creation, and life will result?
So much attention to whether God "knows everything beforehand" and to whether God "figures everything out due to superintellegence. Both separate God and his Creation in a way that damages our understanding and investegation of both.
God created by his Wisdom and Word. Everything is more shaped by that than by anything else.
When talking about EVERYTHING, try refering FIRST to the Wisdom and Word of God in your considerations.
Al
Yes. Wisdom comes from the Holy Spirit, and the Word is Jesus Christ Himself.
Thanks for you warnings.
SIM
"Looking for God--or Heaven--by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare's plays in the hope that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters..."
C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 1/18/2003 5:27 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
That's the problem with debating just one of God's "attributes". It eventually REDUCES GOD. This is the true idolatry. When we turn to anything other than God Himself, even His SOVEREIGNTY, we begin to reduce God's nature.
I think that debating the idea of whether God knows the future as definite or not really makes a HUGE difference in reaching some (atheists) who perhaps cannot believe in a God who would create a person knowing from all eternity that this person would be damned for hell. I used to be totally opposed to the open view because I thought somehow it took some of God's power and sovereignty away (or something like that) but now that I have come to understand the open view I CANNOT see why a person would want to say that God knows FOR SURE who will accept him and who will not. I CANNOT understand what benefit there is to sticking with the blueprint worldview??? I think that the open view and this particular way to understand freewill actually can reach some who cannot accept a God who would orchestrate and elect people.
Since this thread is about idolatry I would like to share something that happened recently. Someone, who I am very close to, told me that they are concerned for me. They told me that they think I have been brainwashed by "that Greg Boyd fellow" because I have come to embrace the open view. WOW! I was SHOCKED. I cannot believe how some people are so opposed to this view. I am amazed at the lengths some people will go to to hold on to the theology they were raised with without even attempting to understand other possibilities. It AMAZED me to say the least. Sometimes I wonder if holding too strongly to the "theology" of our youth is idolatry when we are not open to the Spirit leading us to challenge our understanding...?
That's my two cents,
trosie
Edited by - trosie on 01/18/2003 10:37:52 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/20/2003 4:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Trosie, as far as atheists go, I don't believe the OV will help. I've heard some atheists say that the OV is merely an attempt to deal with the problem of evil (both logical and evidential) that does not hold water because now we are merely changing the definition of God to try to deal with real problems. That the OV "God" is not worthy of worship b/c he is not omniscient, etc.
Further, I don't see why one would have to hold to the OV in order to not support Calvinism. There are lots of theologians and philosophers who believe in human free will and who are able to reconcile that with the traditional view of GOd such that God is not responsible for evil or condemnation. One I've just finished reading is Alvin Plantinga's "GOd, Freedom and Evil"- I believe that is the title although I do not have it with me. Completely holds to the traditional view of God and yet is not Calvinistic by any means.
"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation." -Edward R. Murrow | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/20/2003 4:57 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 1/20/2003 6:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Trosie said: quote:
I CANNOT understand what benefit there is to sticking with the blueprint worldview??? I think that the open view and this particular way to understand freewill actually can reach some who cannot accept a God who would orchestrate and elect people.
SIM: RE: "The blueprint worldview": I think you're referring here to the extreme Calvinistic belief. It seems like you're only considering the extreme views of both belief systems. After listening to R.C. Sproul's teachings early on in my Christian life, I came to a crisis of belief, which only resolved when it was explained that there is a third alternative to the two extremes, both of which either negate our free will choosing, OR reduce God's sovereign control. Sproul's belief is extreme in its belief of God's sovereignty over Man's free will.
BUT THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE BELIEF BETWEEN BOTH EXTREMES.
"Extreme Calvinism"
A more accurate way of looking at God's sovereignty AND Man's free will is NEITHER the extreme belief of R.C. Sproul(wich denies human free choice, believes that "irresistible grace" is coercive on the will of Man, and will lead logically to the denial of God's omnibenevolence (all-lovingness), or the extreme Arminian view (that God's actions are dependent onour free choices).
The MODERATE VIEW, that is to me the most logical view, allows for both free choice and God's sovereignty. It is supported by scripture in Acts 2:23 "'This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross'". This verse clearly communicates that the first century believer's embraced both of these seeming "contradictions."
To me, it is only logical that a God who is before all things (Col. 1:17), beyond all things (Eph. 4:6), creates all things (John 1:3), upholds all things (Heb. 1:3, Col. 1:17)knows all things (Ps. 147:5), and can do all things (Jer. 32:27, Gen. 18:4, Luke 1:37, John 6, John 11)is also IN CONTROL OF ALL THINGS,
Because this helped me in understanding the God who I worship, I thought if you were not familiar with this third approach, it might help you too.
In Christ,
SIM
"Looking for God--or Heaven--by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare's plays in the hope that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters..."
C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 1/20/2003 3:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Sim
The MODERATE VIEW, that is to me the most logical view, allows for both free choice and God's sovereignty. It is supported by scripture in Acts 2:23 "'This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross'". This verse clearly communicates that the first century believer's embraced both of these seeming "contradictions."
Ron
Acts 2:23 is speaking about Jesus, right? Why would you interpret this verse which entails prediction and fulfillment pertaining to the messiah and apply it to all men? God foretold the redeeming event and sent his Son to fulfill it. No other man could do this, so it was an exclusive prediction and fulfillment. I think if you would revisit some of the scriptures your view holds as proof texts and see if they might pertain to a specific individual or place and check if you have made them all inclusive in meaning, then you might be more receptive to the open view. Just a suggestion and correct me if I am wrong about Acts 2:23.
Ron Sirkel | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 1/20/2003 4:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the book recommendations. I will be reading. I do tend to be a "sort by difference" type of thinker so I tend to see the blacks and the whites while mimimizing anything in the middle.
As far as the open view being a way to reach atheist, I'd disagree a bit ReasonableDoubt. I have explained this idea to a few people who had been totally opposed to God and this explanation at least opens up communication a bit. Personally, I can't make any sense out of why people would want to say that God knows the future as definite. In my thinking this would mean that God knew (even while creating a person) that they would choose not God. This does NOT compute in my brain as LOVE. I just can't find any other way to view the future choices people make then to believe God CHOOSES to be in-time with us although God could have created time and freewill differently. God knows ALL the possible choices and to me this makes God even more glorious and magnificent!
Thanks for the suggested reading and alternative ways to view freewill! As I said, it's very easy for me to be an either/or type thinker.
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 1/20/2003 6:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Sim
The MODERATE VIEW, that is to me the most logical view, allows for both free choice and God's sovereignty. It is supported by scripture in Acts 2:23 "'This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross'". This verse clearly communicates that the first century believer's embraced both of these seeming "contradictions"
Ron
Acts 2:23 is speaking about Jesus, right? Why would you interpret this verse which entails prediction and fulfillment pertaining to the messiah and apply it to all men? God foretold the redeeming event and sent his Son to fulfill it. No other man could do this, so it was an exclusive prediction and fulfillment. Just a suggestion and correct me if I am wrong about Acts 2:23.
SIM: Ron, my use of Acts 2:23 is to point to the fact that this verse, in one sentence, embraces BOTH God's eternal knowing ("This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge;") AND Man's responsibility ("and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross".)
I was not in this case trying to prove an inclusive prediction.
God is beyond time, not in time as if He is standing on one day of the calendar of time, looking back at the days past and forward to the days to come. Rather, He is looking down on the whole calendar, seeing all the days at once (2 Tim. 1:9, Titus 1:2).
A logical argument for God's "foreknowledge" (a misnomer, since I believe God is BEYOND, and not limited to time), is this: If God "has" knowledge, then He is knowledge in His entire being. But His entire Being is infinite. Therefore, God must be infinite in His knowledge (Ps. 147:5). And if infinite in knowledge, then He must know everything that is possible to know. That is, He must know everything that is not impossible. But the future is not impossible, since it will one day be actual. Therefore, God must be able to know the future. In brief, God can know the potential as well as the actual. And the future is potential. The future preexists in Him as its primary cause. So God knows the future in advance by knowing Himself. Therefore, God can know the future (Isa. 46:10). (Norm Geisler: Chosen But Free).
In Christ,
SIM
"Looking for God--or Heaven--by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare's plays in the hope that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters..."
C. S. Lewis
Edited by - SIM on 01/20/2003 11:04:53 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 1/20/2003 7:20 PM (GMT -6) | | SIM quote:
And if infinite in knowledge, then He must know everything that is possible to know. That is, He must know everything that is not impossible. But the future is not impossible, since it will one day be actual. Therefore, God must be able to know the future. In brief, God can know the potential as well as the actual. And the future is potential. The future preexists in Him as its primary cause. So God knows the future in advance by knowing Himself. Therefore, God can know the future (Isa. 46:10). (Norm Geisler: Chosen But Free).
What I don't understand (so please help me understand) is that with the quote above you make it seem as if God knows "the" future. Couldn't it be just as true that God knows ALL of "the possibilities" of the future? God can know the potential (what might be) as well as the actual (what will definitely be).
What do you think?
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 1/21/2003 7:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
SIM quote:
And if infinite in knowledge, then He must know everything that is possible to know. That is, He must know everything that is not impossible. But the future is not impossible, since it will one day be actual. Therefore, God must be able to know the future. In brief, God can know the potential as well as the actual. And the future is potential. The future preexists in Him as its primary cause. So God knows the future in advance by knowing Himself. Therefore, God can know the future (Isa. 46:10). (Norm Geisler: Chosen But Free).
What I don't understand (so please help me understand) is that with the quote above you make it seem as if God knows "the" future. Couldn't it be just as true that God knows ALL of "the possibilities" of the future? God can know the potential (what might be) as well as the actual (what will definitely be).
What do you think?
trosie
Trosie, Do you see that in saying the word "future", we are really misapplying it to God because being "Beyond Time", He is not looking toward the future, BUT AT THE FUTURE from His Eternal Present. C. S. Lewis said that God sees everything AS IT HAPPENS (which safeguards free will), but also FROM AN ETERNAL PERSPECTIVE. So in saying that it is "just as true that God knows all of the possibilities of the future" is putting God back into a timeline EXISTENCE. He doesn't have to see the future in the future when He is beyond the future. Do you get my point?
Thanks for the comments,
SIM
"Looking for God--or Heaven--by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare's plays in the hope that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters..."
C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
| 108 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:50 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 |
|
|