 |
| 
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 1/23/2003 6:10 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Trosie I think Sim wrote that quote.
Thanks, Ron Sirkel . Now how could I have done that? I'm sorry. 
Thanks for correcting my mistake.
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 1/24/2003 5:34 AM (GMT -6) | | (continued from last post)
MY LAST POST WAS THIS:
TGB: SIM, I still haven't seen a cogent reply from you on my comments (in other threads) about the uselessness of timeless knowledge, the sort of simple-foreknowledge you argue for. You put an awful lot of confidence in the explanatory usefulness of believing God is timeless and that he knows all of history timelessly. But you have yet to give an example of such.
SIM: First: I do not claim to have the total truth in my perspective. In fact, I believe that in the future, I will look back and realize how incomplete my understanding is right now (at least I certainly hope so!)
PLEASE TRY TO UNDERSTAND. My approach to God's nature is first and foremost to know the TRUTH, and not try to figure it out from any pre-assumptions of what God CAN and CANNOT DO within the TRUTH OF HIS NATURE. I am not making light of your desire to figure HOW God can work from a "foreknowledge". I want to understand this too, but only from an initial understanding of WHAT HE IS LIKE.
SECOND: I apologize if I haven't expressed myself clearly enough, but I certainly do think that God can "USE HIS BEYOND TIME EXISTENCE" to influence what happens. In fact, I believe it is what gives Him the knowledge IN ORDER TO DO THIS. I think the OV belief is more accurate than the extreme classical view in its (OV's) stance on God's "hands-off" approach to Man's free will because I do agree that God gives us an awful freedom to mess up His creation.
Norm Geisler puts the logic of denying God's foreknowledge this way:
The alleged impossibility of knowing free acts in advance
1) Whatever is infallibly known in advance must be determined.
2) A freely chosen event cannot be determined by another.
3) therefore, what is infallibly foreknown cannot be freely chosen.
He says that this reasoning is unsound because the second premise is FALSE. There is no contradiction between God knowing for sure (has determined) what will freely occur in the future (is freely chosen). Just because someone could have chosen another way does not mean that God did not know for sure which way he would choose. (Remember, God is not in our timeline looking forward, in my view.)
Now, Tom, I can hear you saying to yourself, "But this doesn't answer my question, "How does God USE this advantage?""
My thoughts,
1) "He first uses it to limit and influence our free will." I realize this is what the OV belief DOES NOT BELIEVE.
2) "He also uses His knowledge to orchestrate past, present and future events to take into consideration what He allows to be freely chosen."
My belief is that when I abide in Him (which is unfortunately not nearly as often as I want), He can use my thoughts, desires, words, and actions to carry out His highest purposes. I think you believe this too from your past posts.
AN EXAMPLE:
(To be continued. I have to meet a trumpet player for a practice session right now! I'll get back to this SOON! I have a personal example I want to use.)
CONTINUED:
MY PERSONAL EXAMPLE:
I had a hard time deciding which personal event to tell you about. They're all very meaningful.
After typing a personal example, I decided it was too personal so I deleted it. I will post another one, when time and thinking permit.
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 01/24/2003 10:43:20 AM
Edited by - SIM on 01/24/2003 9:35:06 PM
Edited by - SIM on 01/26/2003 09:44:06 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/24/2003 7:51 PM (GMT -6) | | SIM: Now, Tom, I can hear you saying to yourself, "But this doesn't answer my question, ‘How does God USE this advantage?’”
Tom: Close. It’s: How does God make use of what is foreknown as certain to affect or influence what it also equally foreknown as certain? If God timelessly knows that Susan will die in a car accident on her 19th birthday, can he use THIS knowledge to do anything about THIS event? No. Whatever is timelessly and infallibly (fore)known is ALREADY the result of whatever divine influence was exercised to prevent or bring it about. Such knowledge cannot ALSO be the BASIS for preventing or bringing it about.
SIM: My thoughts, 1) "He first uses it to limit and influence our free will." I realize this is what the OV belief DOES NOT BELIEVE.
Tom: But the OV DOES believe God limits and influences the exercise of our free will. Where did you get the idea we denied this? What we do deny is that God has to either eternally or timelessly know all the ways he will certainly limit and influence our wills in order for him to be in control. He can know more than ONE future. He can know millions of futures and be just as prepared for them all as if he only had one to contemplate. So God does limit and influence our wills, he just a) doesn’t need to do so on the basis of timeless knowledge of past, present, and future, and b) wouldn’t be able to do so on such a basis anyhow.
SIM: 2) "He also uses His knowledge to orchestrate past, present and future events to take into consideration what He allows to be freely chosen."
Tom: But what he allows to be freely chosen is as equally timelessly known as that which he makes use of as a basis upon which to decide what to allow to be freely chosen. See it SIM? If God takes things “into consideration” and “orchestrates” events, then some of those events HAVE to be possibilities. The possibilities provide the “room” for consideration and orchestration.
Let’s see. How ‘bout an example.
Chess! It’s opening move. You're white and you move first. I’m black. I’m God. You have eight pawns across your first row and a mixed assortment of pieces behind them along your second row. You have to make an opening move. You have 20 possibilities (which I, as God, know). You can move any one of your pawns forward either one or two spaces. That’s 16 moves. Or you may move either of your two horses out two spaces to the front and one space to the left or right. That’s an additional four possible opening moves. You have 20 possible moves at this point in the game.
Now SIM, you believe a) that these 20 moves are really possible for you, that you're really free to choose and move any one of them, but that b) God timelessly knows exactly which move you’ll make. In addition, you believe c) that for God to stay in control of the game and so guarantee the ultimate victory (b) must be true; (b) allows God to "consider" things and "orchestrate" the moves to get the win.
I agree with you on (a). These 20 moves are really possible for you. You really are free to choose and move any one of them. But I believe that God doesn’t have to know which specific move you WILL make as your opening move in order to be in control of the game. He knows all 20 moves equally as possible moves you MAY make. He doesn’t know which one you will make for certain because that is not compatible with (a), in spite of what Geisler says. But it doesn’t matter to providence! That's the good news here! When you make an opening move, you do something God has eternally contemplated and prepared for. A God who knows timelessly that you WILL open with King’s pawn to King’s pawn four is NO MORE PROVIDENTIALLY PREPARED for the move than a God who has eternally contemplated this one move as a possible opening move along with 19 other possible moves.
So, firstly, there’s no advantage your God has over my God in terms of being providentially prepared for what happens in life.
Secondly, your view that I (as God in this game) timelessly know all the moves in the entire game CANNOT explain anything we believe about how the game is actually played. It cannot explain the give-and-take of the game. It cannot explain the integrity of response, deliberation, free will, real options, and responsibility. If I timeless know YOUR moves, I also timelessly know MY moves. And I know them in one, single, timeless sweep. I don’t gain this knowledge in steps or pieces, so that knowledge of one part of the game will help me influence and orchestrate other parts of the game. There’s no logical wiggle room for me to, as you say, “consider” or “orchestrate” anything at all. It’s simply known. If I as God sit down to play you a game of chess and I have in hand a print-out of all the moves you and I will make, THIS knowledge cannot be used by me to consider or orchestrate anything about the game. If God “considers” anything, he considers A over against B. But there is no “over against” for a God who timelessly knows past, present, and future in one eternal “now.” If God “orchestrates” anything at all, he orchestrates it “this way” rather than orchestrating it “that way.” But there is no “rather than” for a God who timelessly knows ONLY certainties.
In playing you chess, there is nothing I can do timelessly knowing the entire game that I cannot also do knowing all the possible moves and responses. In the case of the latter, I have the ultimate victory sealed up. The eschatological end is certain, even if the “routes” are open to possibly this and possibly that. What is more, timeless knowledge cannot explain what you DO believe about the game and don’t want to let go of, namely, real options, genuine give-and-take, integrity of relationship and free will, and moral responsibility. It’s all there. You don’t lose anything by giving up a “timeless” God and “timeless knowledge,” and much about what you DO believe is explained.
SIM: My belief is that when I abide in Him (which is unfortunately not nearly as often as I want), He can use my thoughts, desires, words, and actions to carry out His highest purposes. I think you believe this too from your past posts.
Tom: For sure! Now we ARE agreeing!
Peace!
Tom
Love never ends
Edited by - TGB on 01/25/2003 10:30:34 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 1/26/2003 4:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for your reply, Tom.
I wanted to respond to let you know I saw your post, and to say I probably won't be able to respond for quite a while. I will be thinking it through.
As I read your posts, it seems to me that other than semantics, and the "time" thing that we are humanly unable to wrap our brain cells around anyway, YOUR belief (do all OV believers believe your beliefs?) and MY belief are both of a high view of God, and total trust in His providential control, which is all important.
So, I'll leave it there. (Whether my thinking of OV is totally right or not, I'm not sure.)
To Be Continued
SIM
("The most fulfilling and transforming moments are moments of "insight"."" John Powell)
"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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/26/2003 5:17 AM (GMT -6) | | SIM: As I read your posts, it seems to me that other than semantics, and the "time" thing that we are humanly unable to wrap our brain cells around anyway, YOUR belief (do all OV believers believe your beliefs?) and MY belief are both of a high view of God, and total trust in His providential control, which is all important.
Tom: I know exactly how you feel. When I joined this discussion group just a few weeks after it started, I told myself I would take it a step at a time and examine the pro's and con's of the open view. I promised myself I'd suspend final judgment for two years. No final verdict till then. After two years I heated up the branding iron and burnt "OV" into my rear end!
It's a complicated world. Lots of angles and detours. Don't feel pressured into any one direction right now. Just follow the arguments where they lead you. Keep track of 'em, and see where you are in a year or so!
And you're right that we do agree on trusting God. He is faithful. He is good. He is loving! Yeah! Agreeing on these things actually makes discussing the other stuff fun! 
Not all open theists agree on everything. On the uselessness of simple-foreknowledge, yeah, all OVers agree (along with a LOT of other non-OV folk). Whether or not I accurately represent mainstream open theism, gee, ask Greg Boyd. I don't know! I hope so!
Tom 
Love never ends
Edited by - TGB on 01/26/2003 10:22:30 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/26/2003 9:05 AM (GMT -6) | | To fit confine God to a timeline is to construct a MYTHOLOGY. The Gospels do not do that. The Gospels confront us with Christ viewed through the Scriptures (O.T., in Pslams, Prophets and Law) and the Scriptures (O.T., in Pslams, Prophets and Law) viewed through the Christ of the Cross.
This modernist love of reducing God to something that can be both measures and evaluated by time and numbers is the construction of such a MYTHOLOGY.
That may or may not be "idolotry." But it is certainly too small a framework to contain all of Tom's faith, or SIMs. It is way too small a framework to bear the Glory of Christ.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 1/26/2003 12:16 PM (GMT -6) | | And as long as Tom and SIM both view God as Totally in control, (however they are able to understand that) and All Sovereign, I don't know about Tom but I'm not even trying to fit God into a framework. Simple faith is the safest, and probably most accurate view anyway. And frankly, no offense to anyone (except maybe to myself's lack of capacity to understand), but I am at the place where I am ready and willing (with my husband's help in accountability) to STOP TYPE-DISCUSSING GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY on this forum. Sometimes, and with me presently, I believe that talking ABOUT God actually moves us away from His true Essence.
Didn't C. S. Lewis comment that the belief in the literal scripture (I think he was speaking about Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden) is most probably the most accurate view, since any of the scientifcally "more accurate" views are based on a human capacity of understanding that is incapable of understanding total accuracy no matter how "accurate", and are therefore, in a very real sense, "less true" than the simple faith.
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 01/26/2003 5:19:29 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 1/26/2003 12:35 PM (GMT -6) | | TGB: It's a complicated world. Lots of angles and detours. Don't feel pressured into any one direction right now. Just follow the arguments where they lead you. Keep track of 'em, and see where you are in a year or so!
And you're right that we do agree on trusting God. He is faithful. He is good. He is loving! Yeah! Agreeing on these things actually makes discussing the other stuff fun!
I appreciate your perspective that sees our similarities in the Trust and Obedience we should have in God.
I am no longer seeing OV belief, at least your belief, as outside the pale of orthodoxy (not that I ever did). But I must be frank that I am no closer to embracing the OV belief as far as my personal belief, than I was before my present understanding.
I have different views as far as time and God, as you know, than what I see OV believing. I am sure, however, that my views of God's nature will be expanding, and with God's help, becoming more accurate, as time goes on. Now, whether that leads me to come to believe more closely how you do, only time will tell. AND HALLELUJAH That God does not REQUIRE ME TO HAVE AN ACCURATE UNDERSTANDING to call me His child!
For Clarity's Sake,
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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/27/2003 1:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Al: To confine God to a timeline is to construct a MYTHOLOGY. The Gospels do not do that. The Gospels confront us with Christ viewed through the Scriptures (O.T., in Pslams, Prophets and Law) and the Scriptures (O.T., in Pslams, Prophets and Law) viewed through the Christ of the Cross. This modernist love of reducing God to something that can be both measures and evaluated by time and numbers is the construction of such a MYTHOLOGY. That may or may not be "idolotry." But it is certainly too small a framework to contain all of Tom's faith, or SIMs. It is way too small a framework to bear the Glory of Christ.
Tom: Why think that a temporal God is a “confined” God? If you think this is the case, perhaps you need to a) examine your presupposed notions about perfection, and b) by all means suggest to us some providential use of foreknowledge which God as you understand him relating to time might enjoy which a temporal God would not enjoy. Now, if we want to maintain that God transcends time by virtue of the Creator/Creation distinction, fine. I actually do believe there are important ways God transcends time and I've mentioned them. But if (as Doc said earlier) this "transcendence of time" is grounds for the belief that God possesses exhaustively definite foreknowledge, cannot foreknow possibilities, etc., then we have problems.
SIM: God does not REQUIRE ME TO HAVE AN ACCURATE UNDERSTANDING to call me His child!
Tom: Preach it sister! I totally understand what it’s like to feel that discussing God sometimes makes one feel farther (I earlier said "farter" and edited it out! Whew!  ) away from God. It’s normal. If you feel like you’re struggling at worship, then back off a bit from discussing theology. We can love, worship, and know his presence without having ALL the answers. At the same time, I found that I needed SOME “belief relief,” if you know what I mean. I needed SOME answers in order to go to the next level in my relationship with Christ. So, though we cannot have what we cannot know as finite beings, I doubt any of us knows what he CAN know. What I’m trying to say is, what you’re feeling may be from trying to unravel what we cannot unravel. But some of what you’re feeling is also likely to just be the discomfort of growing pains. It’s not always easy to know the difference. Part of it comes from just getting out there and knocking heads together with others over these issues. The dust will settle!
Tom
Love never ends
Edited by - TGB on 01/27/2003 07:01:02 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/27/2003 11:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Perhaps you wish for a different verb, Tom. Here's a different one from that same post, but more pointedly critical.
quote:
This modernist love of reducing God to something that can be both measures and evaluated by time and numbers is the construction of such a MYTHOLOGY.
But, actually, Tom, your retort seemed as full of measurable nuts and bolts as anything. And your advice to SIM seems dualistic in advising that an aliment can be managed by simply backing off and then returning to is when it when recovered. Theology is the vision of God. That is not something that we back off from, it is our goal. It is life. But what passes for theology in our Western tradition is knowledge ABOUT God and not knowledge OF God. 'Nuts and bolts' theology is mythology or idolotry. A failing of our Western tradition is the misdirected aspiration to know about God and to accept it as being the best. Knowledge of God is the best. A Scholastic influenced Byzantine named Barlaam argued that we had to settle for this "about" knowledge. Gregory Palamas saw the danger and argued that Barlaam's claim that direct knowledge of God was impossible (but that God could be fully known rationally) was a dangerous heresy. Tom, you have shades of that in your statement: "So, though we cannot have what we cannot know as finite beings..." The witness of lots of Orthodox monks is that we can "have"--even so--what is beyond our rational reach. To put it this way: Knowledge of God can exceed knowledge of God.
SIM, what Tom is calling "growing pains" might be healthy "pain", with all its warning functions. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/27/2003 7:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Al: The witness of lots of Orthodox monks is that we can "have"--even so--what is beyond our rational reach. To put it this way: Knowledge of God can exceed knowledge of God.
Tom: Yes. I agree. All I meant was that as finite beings we can't have all the "rational" answers we might want. We can certainly “know” (= experience) the love of God which surpasses all “knowledge” (= explanation). But, my Orthodox friend, "surpasses knowledge" is synonymous with INCOMPREHENSIBLE, not CONTRADICTORY. This is all that has ever concerned me. For you these two seem to mean the same thing, as in “If I can’t comprehend it because I’m finite, it must therefore be expressible in self-contradictory terms.” It doesn’t follow that because a thing is incomprehensible to us it is therefore self-contradictory or even beyond logic.
But more importantly, my offer still stands—do tell us how believing God’s relating to time as YOU understand this allows God to act providentially in a manner which my “temporal” God is unable to act. SIM and I are discussing the providential advantage which timeless knowledge of past, present, and future supposedly gives God. If believing God is timeless, or both timeless and temporal in whatever sense you believe, does not actually explain providence, then let’s admit its valuelessness ON THIS POINT. If you want to argue that your understanding of God’s relationship to time is necessary or important in OTHER ways not related to God’s providential working in the world, fine. Let’s discuss it elsewhere. For now, however, be good enough to tell us a) whether or not you think God possesses timeless knowledge of all past, present, and future and, if you do, b) what providential advantage you believe this gives God. That’s the ticket. Either paint or get off the ladder.
Al: SIM, what Tom is calling "growing pains" might be healthy "pain", with all its warning functions.
Tom: What I intended by "growing pains" IS healthy pain and has many wonderful functions. Sometimes to warn us? I think so. But you and I would certainly disagree some on how to interpret the warnings. It all depends my friend. It all depends.
Al: And your advice to SIM seems dualistic in advising that an aliment can be managed by simply backing off and then returning to is when it when recovered.
Tom: Look Al, like SIM and many others on this board, I HAVE found discussing theology to be a constant challenge to worship. To be honest, Bro, I face this most intensely whenever dialoguing with you. In debating the pro’s and con’s of different theological options, I do tend to forget what is really important in all of this—worship. We get dry. We sometimes tend to assume that God is more pleased with us if we have all the answers. Now, if “backing off” a bit to remind myself of this (or advising others to do the same) and to re-center on worship and the experience of God’s presence is “dualistic” or “idolatrous,” then tie me to the stake and stoke up the fires.
SIM, if you ever wonder what my meaning is, just ask me. Don’t depend on Al to shed light on what I say.
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 01/28/2003 05:28:18 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/28/2003 11:03 AM (GMT -6) | | SIM, if you ever wonder what Rom's meaning is, just ask him.
Tom, I was posting with SIM as the intended audience.
SIM, I was posting you you as the intended audience. Based on your echos of some things I've posted recently I decided that the underlying similarity warrented my post.
Tom, in what I addressed to SIM I mentioned that YOUR (Tom's) faith is too big to be held in a basket the size of the Open View, or in theological speculation. Your faith (and Doc's) is bigger than what can be constructed mythologically, or as an idol. Too big. And I said so.
For both of you, this: lex orandi and kex credendi. The rule of worship is the rule of faith.
In Sunday School this week a man who teaches theology at a Chicago Evangelical college remarked on a conversation he has going with a Catholic scholar at Loyola Univ. or DePaul Univ. (in Chicago, IL) The Catholic's area of interest is something that the Medieval Scholastics and the RCC in general left all of us to "dig out from." Catachisms. School theology. They are not theology that is grounded in worship. My speaker had an exception that his friend found interesting: the Heidelberg Catachism. His presentation was called "The Restless Catachism." The HC is designed to cycle the readers (the church) , again and again, through three themes: mystery grace and service. But unlike arminians might expect, the mystery of our sin is never shelved, nor is the grace uncellebrated, nor the service unpondered. They all fit together. And it is ALL personal. Where the Westminster asks "What is the chief end of man?" (A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.) the Heidelberg asks "What is your only comfort in life and in death?" (Answer: That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.) Personal.
It ALMOST, but NOT QUITE qualifies as having grown out of worship. And though that first part has been put to music and made into a hymn, it is NOT liturgy.
THEOLOGY is the "vision of God" apprehending his glory. It is worhship of the True God.
"Speculative Theology" is not.
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 01/28/2003 4:07:13 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/29/2003 12:47 AM (GMT -6) | | OK that’s it.
Al: Tom, in what I addressed to SIM I mentioned that YOUR (Tom's) faith is too big to be held in a basket the size of the Open View, or in theological speculation. Your faith (and Doc's) is bigger than what can be constructed mythologically, or as an idol. Too big. And I said so.
Tom: Al, stop assuming to know what beliefs are appropriate for me relative to the size of my faith. As confining, mythological, or idolatrous a belief as you might think the open view is, it actually energizes the life, worship, and vision of a lot of people. You may never understand how this is possible since it is not possible for you. I’ve not wish to alleviate this tension for you.
We all speculate some. We grasp for answers and have to live with not knowing about a great many things. The fundamental beliefs of Scripture and the gospel which we all agree on are enough a vision of God to inspire an eternity of worship. At the same time, the pull to find answers about other issues that yield only ambiguous answers at best can and often is a challenge to worship. If you don’t experience this, fine.
Al: THEOLOGY is the "vision of God" apprehending his glory. It is worhship of the True God. "Speculative Theology" is not.
Tom: Oh please, Al. Your posts have over time given new depth to the meaning of the word “speculate.”
Now, for those of you still reading this thread, let me interpret Al for you. Here’s what he’s saying: “Theology is MY vision of God apprehending his glory as I understand it to be. I worship the True God. I don’t speculate. Open theists speculate. They don’t worship the True God.”
Al, my friend, apart from agreeing in one God who created the universe and Jesus, God-incarnate, come to redeem us, I don’t think we believe in much the same thing. And maybe we don’t agree on this little bit. I’m honestly not interested in knowing anymore. Let’s leave it at that shall we?
SIM, I apologize for my tone here. You’re new to this site. This really is a wonderful place to meet people and interact and grow. You’ll enjoy it! Don’t mind me and Al. We go way back!
Al, I promise not to read a single post of yours from here on out (including whatever response you might have to this!). We’re through Bro. You’re not here and I don’t see you. Please do me the favor of reciprocating. Put me out of your mind! Forget I exist.
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/29/2003 1:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom, this was a possitive, affirming statement: Tom, in what I addressed to SIM I mentioned that YOUR (Tom's) faith is too big to be held in a basket the size of the Open View, or in theological speculation. Your faith (and Doc's) is bigger than what can be constructed ...
Faith must be coherent. But not everything that is coherent is worthy of faith. (Vegetable deities make sense within their own system.) Faith (yours) shows itself bigger than will fit in our own systems. That is what I say in the above quote.
Nothing objectionable there!
Al
P.S. - Tom, when you get emotional you start assuming (for pages last time) that I hold a different view on the INCOMPREHENSIBLE vs. CONTRADICTORY thing than you; which I do not.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/29/2003 12:12 PM (GMT -6) | | To all.
They say that it something “walks like a Duck” … it MIGHT be a duck. Easy enough. But what is implied is that one knows what a Duck walks like. Asking oneself and one’s peers what Ducks walk like is a relevant activity. And particularly on this thread, with the particularly electric (or fiery) title that is has – to include the term “idolatry” – one really, really has to ask what idolatry “walks like.” Don’t you think?
In his book “Knowing God” J. Packer dedicates nearly a chapter to the issue of what idolatry looks like, “walks like,” constitutes. His book is about what idolatry “walks like” in the “classical” theistic community, I suppose. And good for him to do so. Those with a “classical” Western theological foundation really do need to know what the Duck of “idolatry” looks like when it rears its head – bill and all – and walks around among them. It is a particularly relevant topic. Practical. Needful. Worth the time. And excused if it offends a few for a while.
But, by the same token it should, must, and as soon as Tom named this thread IS being asked what “idolatry” looks like, walks like, is among “open” theists. That is practical, needful, and worth the time; even if it offends a few people for a while. Don’t you think?
Tom named the thread, gave it a fiery electric name. And names on this board have a way of destining the future of threads. Here the thread is. But the bird needs identifying. Is it a Duck or not. We are not saying. But first we have to know what a Duck walks like. Walking like a Duck does not mean that it is one. But there is often a connection. But nothing can be done at all until one looks at what a Duck walks like.
Lets see.
But it was Packer who wrote how those with a “classical” Western theological foundation can sometimes wander into idolatry – without intending to, and sometimes quite to the opposite. So, perhaps this should be an invitation, a challenge, a request, a chide, an egging on for some who DO hold to “open” theistic foundations to search, examine, ponder and study the question “What’s a Duck look like if it began as an ‘open’ theistic proposition or practice.” That would be good. It would be appropriate for a thread with such a name as “Open Theism encourages idolatry.” It would be appropriate for someone who holds to “open” theistic foundations to do so.
Who’s going to tackle this question?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
InterestedInquirer
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 2/2/2003 7:33 PM (GMT -6) | | BJS wrote: Someone explain this to me just once. Who exactly would God be angry with? Himself? After all, he intended it to happen, determined that it would happen, forced it to happen, right? Why then would he be angry with any sinful act if he wanted it to happen? I really try to understand this deterministic perspective, but the logical inconsistencies are just glaring. Either God is some kind of schizophrenic puppetmaster, or this determinism is nonsense.
I.I.’s response: The apostle Paul anticipated just such a question. He says, "You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault, for who can resist his will?' (Rom. 9:19)
Now at this point, if Paul were a libertarian this would have been the perfect opportunity to get God off the hook with the free will answer. He might have said something like: "When God hardens people, He is only confirming them in their choice they have already made" or something to that effect (although even this answer would still eliminate their freedom after that point). But does his answer at all smack of an appeal to libertarian freedom? No, but rather he says:
But who are you, o man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me thus?' Has the potter no right to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use? What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power has endured w/ much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction?" (Rom. 9:20-21)
I am not saying that this is the answer that we all would have expected, or that it makes the most sense to us as humans. The notion that we can't determine our own outcome in life is downright offensive to us! It doesn't seem fair. But, just as Paul says, God is under no obligation to give us an explanation for why things are the way they are, or why He didn't do things differently than He did. God is not on trial here. He has no need to defend himself.
I don't know how many times I have heard people try in vain to make Rom. 9 say the exact opposite of what it says. I have read Dr. Boyd's treatment of this text and quite frankly, I just don't find it convincing. It’s not that he doesn’t make a good effort; it’s just that he doesn’t have much to work with given his theological starting point. I usually don't pull out the Rom. 9 trump card because it usually just makes people get angry and they shut off immediately, and there are plenty of other predestinarian passages that serve the purpose just as well. But this particular passage has been giving libertarians fits for ages. It's like a host of flies swarming around their heads that they keep swatting at but can never succeed in killing.
I reference it now, however, because it is so fitting an answer to your question.
I am not required to understand why God holds me responsible for my actions despite the fact that I cannot do anything contrary to His secret purpose and decretive will. As a matter of fact, this is not a question that I am even allowed to ask Him (see 9:20). I am only required to believe what He tells me and humbly submit to His authority, while trusting that His purposes are good even when I don't see how anything good could come out of a given situation. Is this the way that I always respond to Him? If I am going to be honest with myself, I would have to say, no. I don't always respond to God in the way that I should. Often times when I am in the middle of a troubling situation, I doubt God and sometimes even get angry with Him. In these times I have failed to trust in God's goodness, and I need to repent of that, not alter my view of God!
It is usually at this point that libertarians interrupt and point out, “Look, it sounds like you are saying that you had control over whether you would trust or fail to trust. You’re being inconsistent!” No, I didn’t say that I ever had any power to make the end result of that situation be different than what actually came to pass. All I implied was that I was responsible to trust, whether I did so or not. You see, God doesn’t accomplish His ends by skipping over the means. That is Fatalism, not Calvinism. God ordains the means as well as the ends. If I fail to trust God in a certain situation (and yes, he did foreordain even that lack of trust), then I can be sure that He had a good purpose in mind even if I never discover His purpose. Perhaps He will use that past situation of mistrust to show me the folly of my ways, and this will cause (yes, a cause predetermined by God) me to trust Him during my next crisis. I just don’t know. But it is this kind of absolute control that we have in mind when we speak of the Sovereignty of God. (The book of Job is a perfect example of how God often hides His purposes from us. Here is a man who undergoes a plethora of horrible experiences despite the fact that he is a blameless man. He never gets to learn what the reader learns. God doesn't show him that He has a good purpose in mind during his trials, or even after them. Job is expected to trust God in spite of the fact that he doesn't understand God's purposes. It is true that God sometimes does reveal to us the reasons for why certain events happen, but in my experience at least, more often than not, He doesn’t. But the key thing is this--God doesn't require us to figure out why He is doing what He is doing. He only requires us to trust Him.)
Geisler, in his book “Chosen but Free” belittles a man whose son has just died. The man was able to better deal with his son’s death once he came to the realization that God had foreordained the number of days of his life, and that it was God’s decision to remove him at that appointed time. Geisler says, “He wouldn’t say that kind of thing if his daughter had been raped.” To that I reply, “Don’t be so sure.” True, it is possible that he might have had an even harder time coming to grips with the scenario Geisler suggests than with the death of his son, but that doesn’t mean his doctrine is wrong. Geisler’s argument is nothing but an appeal to emotion. He refuses to acknowledge the truth of the matter, that God “ordains whatsoever comes to pass” (Ch. 9 Westminster Catechism), even the most unthinkable events. Nevertheless, Geisler’s theology still forces him to come to grips with the fact that God “permits” or “allows” such atrocious events to occur and that He is in some way sovereign over them and could prevent them if He chooses to. Open Theism, however, as I understand it (please correct me if I’m wrong) is another matter.
A Dangerous Game
Passages like Rom. 9 contain the kind of scriptural statements that cause atheists to openly rail against God, screaming and blaspheming (I never get over how people who don’t believe in God can hate Him so much!). They say, I could never serve or worship this kind of a God! He is despicable! How can you call the God of the Bible a moral God who commits and/or allows such atrocities?!
Now, what is so disturbing to me about Open Theism is this…
(I know this is going to make people wild, but it needs to be said. All I ask is that before you get wild, consider the ramifications of what I’m saying. Ultimately if you commit to Open Theism and if it turns out to be a false theory, you will have to live with the consequences, whatever they may be. I realize that this is a knife that cuts two ways. If I am wrong and Open Theism is true, I am guilty of seriously misrepresenting God. However, I am confident that I stand on solid biblical ground and am in line with the teaching of the Reformers who all denied libertarianism (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Beza, Bullinger etc [with the possible exception of Melanchthon]).
Now please hear this. In a much more subtle way, Open Theism responds to God in the same manner as does Atheism. To be sure, it’s not as obvious, but in reality it makes the same accusations against God. Let me post two remarks that I found on this site written by people whom I presume to be Open Theists:
1) “My thoughts? mmmmmm....the thought of a parent who has just lost their child after an abduction, rape and murder or a woman who has just been raped, humiliated and beaten, or someone that has experienced the many other possible horrible scenarios that can play themselves out in this life, being counseled by someone that truly holds to this theology horrifies me. I cannot fathom a God who would purpose and ordain these kinds of evils to test the treasures of our heart.”
And here is an admission by Tom, in a dialogue w/ Reasonable Doubt, the implications of which I find extremely disturbing. He makes a direct link between determinism (or at least, a non-open view of God) and atheism, perhaps implying that it is rational for people to become atheists if they believe that God in any way brought about a tragedy that deeply affected them:
2) ReasonableDoubt: For example, the Jews who did not lose their faith during the Holocaust, as horrible as it was, believed that God had a purpose for it.
Tom: And others who believed God brought it about turned into atheists.
I’d like you to pay particular attention to example #1. This is an almost verbatim response that many atheists have given me as to why they don’t believe in God!! (although they may have added a few more expletives). At the very least, you must admit to me that Open Theism proposes a God who is much different than the God I proclaim. Taking it a step further, if the Calvinistic view is true, then accusations such as these (i.e. “I could never believe in a monstrous God who would do such things”) are made to the very face of God!! What other word is there to describe it but “blasphemy”? Open Theism sets up for itself a different kind of God, I daresay one remade in the image of man, with a different set of character traits that are much easier to live with and much more user friendly to people of the 21st century.
This, my friends, is why I take this issue so seriously. It is NOT the same God I worship. For this reason I can agree with John Piper and say that Open Theism leads to idolatry. As a matter of fact, I would go a step farther than Piper and say that it is idolatry. Why? Because its adherents worship a God who is different from the biblical God, despite the fact that they offer Him lip service. I notice striking similarities with Israel’s Golden Calf incident. What were Aaron’s words?
“Here, O Israel, is your God who brought you out of Egypt!”
The Israelites didn’t think of themselves as turning their back on Yahweh as they worshipped the calf. On the contrary, they were attempting to worship Him! But the attributes of this God were much different than those of Yahweh. Despite the fact that they may have convinced themselves into believing that this was the same God, Yahweh was not honored by their worship. All I am asking is that you consider the cost. Even if you disagree with the Calvinists view of scripture, at least ask yourself, “If their view of God is correct, would God be displeased with the thoughts I am harboring against Him?” This is a weighty matter, much more so than many people realize. Do not neglect to consider it prayerfully and biblically.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 2/3/2003 1:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Jam 3:13 Who [is] a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. 14But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. 15This wisdom descendeth not from above, but [is] earthly, sensual, devilish. 16For where envying and strife [is], there [is] confusion and every evil work. 17But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, [and] easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. 18And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
I have been pondering? Scripture says, Tts 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Tts 3:2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, [but] gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.
I have noticed that the Bible has much to say about our behavior toward one another, even equated to our treatment of the Anointed One Himself, believer or not. More, much more to say…
God is Love,
Tim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/3/2003 9:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Inquirer-
Thanks for the thoughtful comments.
II: And here is an admission by Tom, in a dialogue w/ Reasonable Doubt, the implications of which I find extremely disturbing.
Tom: You find the “implications” disturbing? Perhaps this is because you’re relying on fleshly human wisdom and logic. I’m not required to explain it to my or your satisfaction. I’m only required to believe what the Bible teaches. How could God remain in control and the future be open to possibilities? You have no right to ask this. Who are you to question the wisdom of God. The open view is even MORE true because it doesn’t make sense. [See how frustrating it is to talk to somebody who reasons like this?]
II: He makes a direct link between determinism…and atheism, perhaps implying that it is rational for people to become atheists if they believe that God in any way brought about a tragedy that deeply affected them.
Tom: No. All I said was that some Jews abandoned faith in God because they felt the only explanation their faith offered them was that God brought the Holocaust about for some good reason. It’s a historical fact. RD was offering the fact that some Jews didn’t abandon their faith although they believed God brought the Holocaust about as evidence of the truth of the belief that God brought it about. My point was not to argue the rationality (or not) of atheism; it was just to show that RD’s reasoning didn’t work. Some Jews abandoned their faith in a God who predetermined the Holocaust. So what? What do the varying responses of those who suffered in the Holocaust “prove” about their beliefs either way?
II: At the very least, you must admit to me that Open Theism proposes a God who is much different than the God I proclaim.
Tom: Judging from your post, my hunch is that you’re probably correct. Unfortunately, this says nothing about the truth value of either open theism or your beliefs—unless of course you ARE the standard of truth.
II: Taking it a step further, if the Calvinistic view is true, then accusations such as these (i.e. “I could never believe in a monstrous God who would do such things”) are made to the very face of God!
Tom: Two things, Inquirer. First, this is not an accusation. It’s a simple declaration about what the one who said it believed to be true about himself (or herself). Get your grammar straight. Secondly, if the Calvinistic view is true, then this person believes and says exactly what God decreed they should believe and say. Now, I for one have to agree that I would have tremendous difficulty loving and trusting a God who unconditionally determined all the evil our world has and will ever see.
Tom
Love never ends
Edited by - TGB on 02/03/2003 3:00:59 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
InterestedInquirer
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 2/3/2003 7:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom, thank you for your considerate response. First, let me say that I expect to take a lot of heat for my posts. The thought of that doesn't thrill me, because I'm a pretty sensitive guy, but I feel that it is worth it because the stakes are high. I wish, though, that people could see my heart and why I am writing what I write. I have a deep concern for people who hold to the Open View for the very reasons I mentioned. I am trying very hard to be as charitable as I can be while not shying away from what I believe very strongly to be the truth. I believe that sometimes real love is a tough love that doesn't back down from calling things as they see them and telling people when they are in danger. I know that "Idolatry" is a harsh word to use, but the fact of the matter is,if I didn't believe that Open Theism is idolatrous, I wouldn't be posting on this site.
You wrote:
Two things, Inquirer. First, this is not an accusation. It’s a simple declaration about what the one who said it believed to be true about himself (or herself). Get your grammar straight.
II: You are right. "Statement" would have been a better word to use than "accusation". My slip. Nevetheless, however one voices these thoughts, even if they are speaking as though that type of God does not exist, if they are wrong, then God's majesty and honor is mocked.
Regardless of whether the Reformed view IS actually right, I want people to see what is going on IF it is right.
You also said:
Tom: All I said was that some Jews abandoned faith in God because they felt the only explanation their faith offered them was that God brought the Holocaust about for some good reason. It’s a historical fact. RD was offering the fact that some Jews didn’t abandon their faith although they believed God brought the Holocaust about as evidence of the truth of the belief that God brought it about. My point was not to argue the rationality (or not) of atheism;
II: Notice how I carefully worded my statement, in case I was wrong, but do you see how I might have thought that?
You also said:
Secondly, if the Calvinistic view is true, then this person believes and says exactly what God decreed they should believe and say.
II: Amen. I believe this. And I also believe that they are still responsible for it. Like I said before, I'm not sure how or why, but I believe that the Bible teaches this. I also belive that God uses means to effect changes in the world and in people's hearts, otherwise I wouldn't be writing this right now. What good would it be to write anything? Calvinism is different from Fatalism (there are many good works that deal with this subject).
Lastly, you said:
Now, I for one have to agree that I would have tremendous difficulty loving and trusting a God who unconditionally determined all the evil our world has and will ever see.
II: All I am saying is this. Just make sure you are prepared to live with that statement for eternity. Search the scriptures diligently. See if there is any way possible that the Reformed view is compatible with commands, exhortations, threats, etc.
Even if you can't bear the Reformed view, I think the traditional Arminian view is less spiritually perilous, as much as I disagree with it. The Open View may be more philosophically coherent that the Arminian view, but despite its discrepancies, it seems to me that the Arminian view sticks a little closer to Scripture.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 2/3/2003 11:20 PM (GMT -6) | | II. Passages like Rom. 9 contain the kind of scriptural statements that cause atheists to openly rail against God, screaming and blaspheming...Open Theism responds to God in the same manner as does Atheism. To be sure, it’s not as obvious, but in reality it makes the same accusations against God.
Doc It's not "passages like Rom. 9" that cause atheists, open theists, Arminians and basically most non-Reformed people to "rail against God." Its the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 that causes them to rail against the Calvinist portrayal of God. There are alternative (in my view, much more exegetically plausible) interpretations of Romans 9 (e.g. could someone find that long posting I made in a different thread on Romans 9? I don't recall where it was).
II. This, my friends, is why I take this issue so seriously. It is NOT the same God I worship. For this reason I can agree with John Piper and say that Open Theism leads to idolatry. As a matter of fact, I would go a step farther than Piper and say that it is idolatry. Why? Because its adherents worship a God who is different from the biblical God...
Doc: If idolatry means "embracing a different view of God than the one I hold," who could disagree with you? My worry is that setting ones own theology up as the standard against which all others are judged idolatrous may itself be an act of idolatry.
think about it
blessings
Doc
"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 2/4/2003 1:10 AM (GMT -6) | | II: All I am saying is this. Just make sure you are prepared to live with that statement for eternity. Search the scriptures diligently. See if there is any way possible that the Reformed view is compatible with commands, exhortations, threats, etc.
Tom: Help me understand this, Inquirer. What eternal judgment do you believe God will exact from believers who after honestly searching Scripture diligently, prepared to believe Scripture whatever it teaches them, become convinced the open view is true and compatibilism is not? Or don’t you believe this is even possible? Or must you vilify the motives and characters of people who believe differently than you in order to justify your beliefs? It is self-evidently true that open theism is compatible with a life of love, righteousness, purity of heart, obedience to the commands of Scripture, and faithful service. Are not these what we ought to be considering in the fear of the Lord as we prepare for eternity? Are you telling me that God will exact judgment upon open theists who live lives characterized by these virtues but who are not correct in affirming this or that understanding of sovereignty? Or do you believe it impossible for open theists to live lives of love, purity, and trusting obedience?
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/4/2003 2:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc ...could someone find that long posting I made in a different thread on Romans 9? I don't recall where it was.
Tom: Here's your post on Romans 9 Doc:
-------------------------------------------------
This is ridiculously long, unless one is really interested in Romans 9. Its an exert from my forthcoming book, Is God to Blame? It goes beyond what I argued in God of the Possible.
On first glance, it may seem that the blueprint interpretation has a strong case. For in this passage Paul explicitly says that God "has mercy on whomever he chooses and he hardens whomever he chooses" (vs. 18). He then illustrates God’s sovereign election by referring to God’s choice of Isaac over Ishmael (9:7-8) and of Jacob over Esau (9:10-13). Regarding this latter choice Paul writes:
Even before [Jacob and Esau] had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue, not by works but by his call) [Rebecca] was told, "The elder shall serve the younger." As it is written, "I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau." (Rom. 9:11-13)
Without regard to anything Jacob or Esau did, God choose to "love" Jacob and "hate" Esau. Hence, Paul concludes, God’s choice of people "depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy" (Rom. 9:16).
The support for the blueprint interpretation seems to grow even stronger as Paul goes on to depict God’s relationship to humans as a relationship between a potter and his clay. God has the right to fashions us, his clay, however he sees fit. And this is precisely what he does, according to Paul.
"Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" (Rom 9:21-23).
According to some blueprint theorists, Paul is teaching that God simply fashions some vessels for destruction in order to display his wrath and power and other vessels for mercy in order to display his mercy. He hardens the former and has mercy on the latter. And this hardening and granting mercy is not based on anything God finds in the vessel. It is simply based on God’s free decision. If this seems unfair, as it undoubtedly does, Paul’s response is simply to invalidate the sentiment: "[W]ho indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, "Why have you made me like this?" (Rom 9:20).
I shall call this interpretation of Romans 9 the "blueprint interpretation," for it holds that the process whereby some become hardened and others receive mercy follows God’s eternal blueprint. Unbelief as much as belief is part of God’s plan. And again, it is evident that if this interpretation of this passage is correct, the warfare worldview I’ve been defending in this book must be mistaken.
I do not believe this interpretation is correct, however. In what follows I offer six considerations that I believe demonstrate the incorrectness of this understanding of Romans 9.
1. The Absoluteness of Christ and the Universality of God’s Love
First, as we discussed in the previous chapter, the view that God unilaterally determines some to be forever outside his saving grace contradicts the absoluteness of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Indeed, it renders God’s self-revelation on Calvary pen-ultimate. The unconditional love and the judgment on sin manifested on the cross become qualified by a supposedly more foundational revelation of God’s eternal selection.
On this supposition, the revelation of God in Christ only tells half the story: the other half of the story tells of a dark streak in God whereby he arbitrarily fashions some people to be "objects of wrath made for destruction" and others to be "objects of mercy…prepared beforehand for glory" (Rom 9:22-23). He then eternally punishes the objects of wrath for being the way he designed them to be in order to provide a contrast with his gracious treatment of the vessels of mercy.
If this is so, we can only conclude that Christ is not the one, absolute, definitive, sufficient revelation of God. We must conclude that he is not the one and only image, word and expression of God (Jn 1:1; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3). We must conclude that he does not sum up everything about God to us and everything about us to God. We must rather conclude that there is a more fundamental, sinister "word" of God concealed by the word God speaks in Christ. Behind the image of God dying on Calvary out of love for humanity is an image of God making many humans for the sole purpose of displaying his eternal wrath in them. The beautiful Good News of God’s outrageous love in Christ conceals the horrifying bad news of God’s equally outrageous hatred. If this is so, we must conclude that God so loved some of the world that he gave his only Son (Jn 3:16), while the rest he had been preparing for eternal wrath and destruction from the start.
If we rather resolve that Jesus is our definitive picture of God, to be placed alongside of or qualified by none other, then we must conclude that there is something amiss with the blueprint interpretation of Romans 9. For Christ reveals, and the biblical witness confirms, that God is love, his love is universal, his love is impartial, his love is kind, and his love desires all to be saved (e.g. I Jn 4:8; Duet 10:17-19; 2 Chron 19:7; Ezek 18:25; Mk 12:14; Jn 3:16; Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:10-11; Eph 6:9; I Tim 2:4; I Pet 1:17; 2 Pet. 3:9).
2. Has God Broken Covenant?
Second, the blueprint interpretation of Romans 9 assumes that Paul’s is concerned with individual salvation in this chapter. But, in point of fact, this is not the issue Paul is addressing in this chapter. The expressed issue Paul is addressing is whether or not "the word of God had failed" (Rom 9:6). That is, has God’s promise to be God of the Jews and to have them as his covenant people been rescinded?
The question was a burning one for Paul, for to many Jews this shocking conclusion seemed to follow from what Paul was preaching. Most Jews of the day understood God’s covenantal faithfulness toward them to depend on two things: their nationality and their obedience to the law. If what Paul was preaching was true, however – that is, if salvation was available to anyone, including Gentiles, simply on the basis of their faith -- then neither a person’s Jewish nationality nor their obedience to the law counted for anything (cf. Gal 5:12). It seemed that the uniqueness of the Jewish identity and calling had been undermined.
Even worse, it now seemed to be working against them. Because they strove for righteousness based on the external observation of the law (works) instead of faith, they were now being hardened – as evidence by the fact that so few believed in Jesus.(Rom 9:31-32). This meant that, if Paul’s Gospel was true, the very ones whom God made covenant promises to were now being hardened. Hence it looked like "the word of God had failed."
This is the question Paul is addressing in Romans 9 (as well as 10 and 11). It’s a question of God’s fidelity to Israel as a nation and the basis by which God makes anyone a covenant partner. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how God elects individuals to salvation. We are misguided if we try to use this passage to answer this question.
3. Election to Vocation, Not Salvation
The way Paul answered this objection also shows that his concern was with God’s relationship to a nation, not with individual salvation. Paul refuted the idea that God’s covenantal promises had failed by showing that God’s covenantal promises were never based on a peoples’ nationality or external obedience to the law. Rather, Paul argued, God had always exercised his sovereign right to choose whoever he wanted to choose.
Paul illustrated his point by referring to God’s choice of Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau, made without any consideration for their attributes or merits (9:8-13). Both examples underscore God’s right to choose whomever he wishes, for both choices were made ahead of time and both were wholly unexpected. Moreover, both choices reversed the role of primogenitor, both concerned individuals who were not exemplar in their character, and most surprisingly – and telling -- Isaac was supernaturally conceived.
In offering these examples, Paul was defending God’s right to choose whoever he wants and to do so by any means he chooses. Hence, Paul is arguing, it shouldn’t be shocking to Jews if God now chooses to enter into a covenant with Gentiles simply on the basis of their faith. At the same time, it is important to remember that in using Isaac and Jacob to illustrate God’s prerogative to choose whoever he pleases, Paul was not concerning himself with the eternal destinies of people. His concern was solely to show God’s sovereignty in electing people to a historical vocation.
To underscore God’s sovereign prerogative, Paul emphasized the arbitrary way God brought about a chosen people through Isaac and Jacob whose mission was to serve God and the world by being a nation of priests (Isa 61:6) and a "light to all the nations" (Isa 42:6; 49:6; 60:3). They were to be the means by which all the nations of the world would be blessed by hearing about the one true God (e.g. Gen 12:2-3; 18:18; 22:18; Ps 67:1-2; Isa 2:2-4; 55:5; 61:9-11; 66:19-20; Jer 3:17; Rom 4:12-18). Their election as a nation was always primarily about service, not individual salvation.
Paul emphasized the arbitrariness of God’s choice of the Jews to unsettle those who thought God’s word had failed because he had rendered their nationality and external observation to the law obsolete in Christ. Throughout Romans 9 through 11 Paul was at pains to show that God’s goal all along had been to reach out beyond the borders of Israel and win the whole world (Rom 9:25-26, 33; 10:10-21; 11:11-12). Indeed, Paul insisted God was yet going to attain his goal. But since Israel as a nation had rejected the Messiah, Paul argued, God was now going to use their blindness rather than their obedience to achieve it (Rom. 11:11-32).
In any event, we are clearly reading too much into Romans 9 if we think that Paul was suggesting that Ishmael or Esau—or anyone else not chosen in the selection process by which God formed the Jewish nation (e.g. all of Joseph’s brothers?) -- were individually damned. Paul is simply not concerned in this chapter with individual destinies. Indeed, he uses the examples he does precisely because they represent more than individuals: they represent nations. In choosing Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau, in other words, God was illustrating his choice of Israel (the descendents of Isaac and Jacob) over the Moabites (the descendents of Ishmael) and the Edomites (the descendents of Esau). Again, this didn’t mean that all Moabites or Edomites were eternally lost. It just means that these nations were not chosen for the priestly role in history God chose the Israelites for.
This national focus is emphasized in the fact that the Old Testament passage Paul cites to make his point about Esau (Malachi 1:2-3, "I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau" [Rom 9:13]) is explicitly about the country of Edom. Some might suppose that God’s pronouncement that he "loved" Jacob and "hated" Esau shows that he is speaking about their individual eternal destinies, but this is mistaken. In Hebraic thought, when "love" and "hate" are contrasted they usually are meant hyperbolically. The expression simply means to strongly prefer one person or thing over another.
So, for example, when Jesus said, "Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple" (Lk 14:26), he was not saying we should literally hate these people. Elsewhere he taught people to love and respect our parents, as the Old Testament also taught (Mk 10:19). Indeed, he commanded us to love even our enemies (Mt 5:44)! What Jesus was saying was that he must be preferred above parents, spouses, children, siblings and even life itself. The meaning of Malachi’s phrase, then, is simply that God preferred Israel over Edom to be the people he wanted to work with to reach out to the world.
Hence, there is no justification for interpreting Romans 9 as though it were trying to teach us anything about how God saves or damns individuals.
4. Paul’s Summary and Free Will
A fourth argument that demonstrates the error of the blueprint interpretation of Romans 9 concerns Paul’s summary at the end of this chapter. Whenever we are struggling to understand a complex line of reasoning such as we find in Romans 9, it is crucial to pay close attention to the author’s own summary of his argument, if and when he provides one. By all accounts, Romans 9 is a difficult, complex and highly disputed passage. Fortunately, Paul provides us with very clear summary of his argument in this chapter (9:30-32). Unfortunately for the blueprint interpretation, it appeals to free will as the decisive factor in determining who "receives mercy" and who gets "hardened."
Paul begins his summary by asking, "What then shall we say" (vs. 30)? If the blueprint interpretation was correct, we would expect Paul to answer by saying something like, "The sovereign God has determined who will be elect and who will not, and no one has the right to question him." As a matter of fact, however, Paul doesn’t say anything like this. He rather summarizes his argument by saying:
Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works (vss. 30–32).
This is extremely significant. Paul explains everything he’s been talking about throughout Romans 9 by appealing to the morally responsible choices of the Israelites and Gentiles. The one thing God has always looked for in people is faith. The Jews did not "strive" by faith, though they should have (cf. 10:3). They rather choose to trust in their own works. The Gentiles, however, simply believed that God would justify them by faith. This theme recurs throughout chapters 9 through 11. As a nation, Paul says, the Jews "were broken off because of their unbelief…" (11:20). This is why they have been hardened (Rom. 11:7, 25) while the Gentiles who sought God by faith have been "grafted in" (11:23).
We see that God’s process of hardening some and having mercy on others is not arbitrary: God expresses "severity toward those who have fallen [the nation of Israel] but kindness toward you [believers] provided you continue in his kindness" (11:22). God has mercy on people and hardens people in response to their belief or unbelief. And he’s is willing to change his mind about both the hardening and the mercy, if people change. If Gentiles become arrogant and cease walking by faith alone, they will once again be "cut off." And if the Jews who are now hardened will not "persist in their unbelief," God will "graft them in again" (Rom. 11:22-23).
To the Jews who trusted in their national identity and/or external obedience to the law, this hardening seemed arbitrary. Hence Paul chides them by asking, "who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’" (Rom. 9:20). But, as Paul makes abundantly clear throughout Romans 9-11, the hardening was in fact not arbitrary. It was perfectly consistent with the criteria of faith God has always worked with. He gives mercy in response to faith and he hardens in response to unbelief. Only people who were convinced that their national identity and/or good works was the basis of God giving mercy would think that God was now being arbitrary in hardening the Jews as a nation and extending mercy to the Gentiles.
5. The Flexible Potter and Willing Clay
Fifth, if read in the light of its Old Testament background, Paul’s analogy of a potter working with clay doesn’t imply that the potter unilaterally decides everything, as the blueprint interpretation of Romans 9 suggests. Indeed, in the Old Testament passage that makes the most use of the potter-clay analogy, it has the exact opposite meaning.
In Jeremiah 18 the Lord showed Jeremiah a potter who was working on a vessel that didn’t turn out right. So the potter revised his plan and formed a different kind of pot out of it (Jer. 18:1-4). In the same way, the Lord said, since he is the potter and Israel is the clay, he has the right and is willing to "change his mind" about his plans for Israel if they will simply repent (Jer. 18:4-11). Indeed, the Lord announced that whenever he’s going to judge a nation, he is willing to change his mind if the nation repents. Conversely, whenever God announces that he’s going to bless a nation, he will change his mind if that nation turns away from him. In other words, the point of the potter-clay analogy is not God’s unilateral control, but God’s willingness and right to change his plans in response to changing hearts.
The passage fits perfectly with the point Paul is making in Romans 9. While some individual Jews had accepted Jesus as the Messiah, the nation as a whole had rejected Jesus, and thus rejected God’s purpose for themselves (cf. Lk 7:30). Hence, though God had previously blessed Israel, he was now changing his mind about them and was hardening them. Ironically, and shockingly, the Jews were finding themselves in the same position as their old nemesis Pharaoh. He had hardened his heart toward God, so God responded by hardening him further in order to raise him up to further his own sovereign purposes(Rom 9: 17). So too, Paul was arguing, God was now hardening the Jews in their self-chosen unbelief to further his sovereign purposes. He was going to use their rebellion to do what he had always hoped their obedience would do: namely, bring the non-Jewish world into a relationship with him (Rom 11:11-12).
Even here, however, the sovereign potter remains flexible. If the Jews will abandon their unbelief – clearly God’s hardening is not determinative or irrevocable – the potter will once again refashion his plan and graft them in. Conversely, if the Gentiles ever abandon their belief and become prideful – clearly God’s mercy is not determinative or irrevocable – the potter will once again refashion his plan for them and cut them off (Rom 11:12-25).
In any case, we see that the point of the potter analogy is the opposite of what the blueprint interpretation would have us believe. Paul’s point is that sovereign potter has the right to revise his plans in response to the clay, which is exactly what God was doing to the nation of Israel. And, however arbitrary his revisions may appear to Jews who trust in their nationality or good works, they are in fact perfectly wise and just revisions.
This sheds light on why Paul responds to the charge that God is unfair by quoting God as saying, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy" (9:14, cf. 18). He is not suggesting that God gives mercy or hardens people without any consideration of the choices people make. To the contrary, as has always been the case, the people God chooses to have mercy on are those who have faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. And the people God chooses to harden are those who don’t "strive for [righteousness] on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works"(vs. 30–32). But to Jews who insist that God must choose people based on their nationality or works, God’s right to have mercy on whoever he wishes – even if they have nothing other than faith going for them – needed to be emphasized.
It is also significant to note the original context of the Old Testament quote Paul is giving. The Jews had just turned away from God to worship idols while Moses was receiving the ten commandments on Mt. Sinai – the terms of the covenant God was initiating with them (Ex 32:1-6). God responded by telling Moses he was planning on destroying them and starting over with Moses alone (Ex 32:9-10). Because of Moses’ intercession, however, the Lord changed his mind and gave those who were willing a chance to repent (Ex 32:14-35). The flexible potter refashioned his plan.
In a tender dialogue between God and Moses that followed this episode, the Lord allowed Moses to behold some of his glory, telling him "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" (Ex 33:19). The Lord was saying that, to people of faith like Moses, he gives mercy, while to people like the Jews who rebelled – and like Pharaoh – he gives judgment. By choosing to have faith or to rebel against God, individuals decide which they will receive. They determine whether God will fashion them into a vessel of mercy or a vessel prepared for destruction (Rom 9:21-23).
This also explains why Paul says that God "endured with much patience" the vessels he was preparing for destruction (Rom. 9: 22). Why would God have to "endure with much patience" rebellious people if he was the one making them rebellious in the first place? Why would he go on to say, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people" (10:21, quoting Isa. 65:2) if he was the one molding them to be disobedient? And why would a God of love intentionally fashion people to rebel against him and bring destruction on themselves in the first place?
In point of fact, the potter endures with much people vessels that are being prepared for destruction because it was not his original will to fashion these people in this direction. He would love all "disobedient and contrary people" to come to him, and thus is patient with them. But so long as they persist in their unbelief, they are clay that is can only be fashioned into a vessel fit for destruction.
6. It’s About Wisdom, Not Power
This leads to our sixth and final point. When Paul responds to the charge of injustice by asking, "who… are you, a human being, to argue with God?" (vs. 20), he is not thereby appealing to the sheer power of the potter over the clay. He is rather appealing to the sovereign wisdom of the potter in refashioning clay in a manner that fits the kind of clay he has to work with. When "clay" yields to his influence and has faith, he fashions a vessel of honor. When "clay" becomes "spoiled" (Jere 18:4) and resists his will, he fashions a "vessel of ordinary use" that is being prepared for destruction.
Again, this fashioning looks arbitrary to Jews who believed that they were the "vessel of honor" by virtue of their national identity or good works – Jews who did not "strive for [God’s righteousness] on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works" (Rom 9:32). It is to these people, expressing this sentiment, that Paul sarcastically asks, "Who are you…?" In truth, God’s fashioning is not arbitrary at all. It is based on whether or not one is willing "to seek" after the righteousness of God that comes by faith, not works (9:30–32; 10:3–5, 12–13; 11:22–23).
Conclusion
On the basis of these six considerations I conclude that the blueprint interpretation of Romans 9 is as misguided as it is unfortunate. It is misguided not only because it misinterprets Paul, but because it fundamentally clashes with the supremacy of God’s self-revelation in Christ. And it is unfortunate because it tragically replaces the unsurpassably glorious picture of God as Jesus Christ dying on the cross for undeserving sinners with a picture of a deity who defies all moral sensibilities by arbitrarily fashioning certain people to be vessels fit for eternal destruction -- and then punishing them for being that way. It exchanges the picture of a beautiful God who reigns supreme with self-sacrificial love and flexible wisdom for a picture of a God who reigns by the arbitrary exercise of sheer power.
With Paul, those who embrace a biblical warfare worldview can unequivocally affirm that the sovereign God "has mercy on whomever he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whomever he wants to harden." We would simply add, also along with Paul, that the "whomever" he has mercy on refers to "all who choose to believe" while the "whomever" he hardens refers to "all who refuse to believe." The passage demonstrates the wisdom of God’s loving flexibility, not the sheer determinism of God’s power.
In this chapter I have argued that the warfare worldview can readily handle that passage which is most frequently presented as the strongest support of the strong form of the blueprint worldview. In the final chapter I shall continue this strategy as we encounter nine more passages, or sets of passages, that many feel stand in tension with any view that would deny that God always gets his way.
--------------------------------
And here are some other discussions we’ve had on Romans. Inquirer, these are worth checking out:
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1585
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=970
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=962
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=959
Blessings,
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
InterestedInquirer
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 2/4/2003 1:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom writes:
It is self-evidently true that open theism is compatible with a life of love, righteousness, purity of heart, obedience to the commands of Scripture, and faithful service.
II:
I don't necessarily disagree with that at all. But the same might be said of liberals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc. The Protestant position is that it is not by virtue of these things that one is saved. John 17:3 reads: "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ."
Now, knowing God is not limited to knowing information about Him,it goes beyond that, but it does include aspects of knowledge. Just as with a human relationship, our knowledge of God and our relationship with Him develops and grows over time. There are many things we might wrongly believe about a new friend that we meet, but as we get to know them more, many of those things will be ironed out over time. By no means do I mean to imply that to have a relationship with God,
your knowledge of Him must be without error. Having said that, I will use an illustration by J Vernon MCGee, who used to say something like this: "A person certainly can be saved without knowing of the virgin birth. However, it is one thing to not know of it, and another thing altogether to deny the virgin birth ever happened."
My point is this. I am not saying that someone who believes in the Open View can't be saved, even if it is wrong, but I do believe that over time, if this view of God is not biblical, then God will correct it as the relationship develops. What I do think is very dangerous, is that if the Reformed view of God is true, and someone says, "That kind of God is despicable," I have to question whether their relationship with God is genuine. All I have said amounts to this; I wouldn't want to be in that person's shoes come judgement day. Now, I am fully willing to grant that you could say the same thing to me. As I said before, if I am wrong, I am guilty of seriously misrepresenting God. All I will reply in response is that I am not espousing any new view. I stand clearly within the pale of the Reformation tradition (even though that might not mean much to many people today).
I begin classes tomorrow, so I will no longer have much time to dialogue, but thanks for discussing these things with me.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Magneton
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 2/5/2003 9:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Back to the beginning of the thread: I can see an element of truth in Piper's claims, although I find his rhetoric very offensive. All he explicitly claims is that unless one views all that comes our way as coming directly from God, one is more likely to cling to what we have, and make them our idols. I can see where a mindset that everything that comes my way is from God for good purposes would be a useful device for devotion to God. It may be a fantasy, i.e. lacking correspondence with reality, but to sincerely believe it would be a deterrent to idolizing our things. As Doc has pointed out, however, this view has the danger of falling into idolatry of our ideas, so it's a bit of a tradeoff.
II's comments about the high stakes and eternal consequences involved remind me that classical Christendom has apparently bought into a version of Pascal's Wager in the area of God's attributes and actions. To minimize risk at Judgment Day, it's safer to err on the positive side in identifying attributes of God. Better to be called naïve on that day, than to discover one has insulted the Lord. In the spirit of "better safe than sorry," attributes such as exhaustive foreknowledge and actions such as the ordaining of evil events for higher purposes are proposed, to give God the maximum credit or glory. OV thought, on the other hand, is less motivated by minimizing this Judgment Day risk, and more motivated by correspondence with reality. In the absence of definitive answers, we are caught in a kind of tradeoff between reality and reverence.
Magneton
"Remember, humility is the closest that we will EVER get to objectivity." Mephi2K
Edited by - Magneton on 02/05/2003 2:19:05 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 2/5/2003 10:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
II's comments about the high stakes and eternal consequences involved remind me that classical Christendom has apparently bought into a version of Pascal's Wager in the area of God's attributes and actions. To minimize risk at Judgment Day, it's safer to err on the positive side in identifying attributes of God. Better to be called naïve on that day, than to discover one has insulted the Lord. In the spirit of "better safe than sorry," attributes such as exhaustive foreknowledge and actions such as the ordaining of evil events for higher purposes are proposed, to give God the maximum credit or glory. OV thought, on the other hand, is less motivated by minimizing this Judgment Day risk, and more motivated by correspondence with reality. In the absence of definitive answers, we are caught in a kind of tradeoff between reality and reverence.
It could be argued, of course, that exhaustive determinism, along with being unrealistic, doesn't show much reverence for God either -- so I'm not sure that we are necessarily in a tradeoff situation.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
| 108 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:36 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 |
|
|