 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/11/2003 5:48 AM (GMT -6) |   | I’d like to post something I ran across today.
How Open Theism Helps Us Conceal Our Hidden Idolatries
April 10, 2002
John Piper
Open theism may help conceal deep idolatry in the soul. One of the great needs of our souls is to know if we treasure anything on earth more than we treasure Christ. Treasuring anyone or anything more than Christ is idolatry. Paul said in Colossians 3:5, "Put to death therefore what is earthly in you . . . covetousness, which is idolatry." If covetousness is idolatry, then desiring earthly things more than we desire God is idolatry. That means we must be more satisfied in Christ and his wisdom than we are in all our relationships and accomplishments and possessions on earth.
Now how does Open Theism help us conceal from ourselves the idolatries in our souls. It ascribes ultimate causality for many calamities and evils to Satan or the autonomous will of man, not finally to the all-disposing counsel and wisdom of God above and behind Satan….
How does this worldview help us conceal the idolatry of our soul? It works like this. Open Theism denies that God is the final, purposive disposer of all things (Job 2:10; Amos 3:6; Rom. 8:28; Eph. 1:11). Therefore it asserts that God's wisdom does not hold final sway (Rom. 11:33-36), and thus God is not fulfilling a plan for our good in all our miseries (Jeremiah 29:11; 32:40). Open Theism implies, therefore, that we should not think about the wisdom of God's purpose in causing or permitting our calamities. In other words, Open Theism discourages us from asking what sanctifying purpose God may have in ordaining that our misery come about.
But in reality our pain and losses are always a test of how much we treasure the all-wise, all-governing God in comparison to what we have lost. We see this merciful testing of God throughout the Scriptures. For example, in Deuteronomy 8:3 Moses said, "And [God] humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord." In other words, God ordains the hard times ("he . . . let you hunger") to see if good times are our god. Do we love bread, or do we love God? Do we treasure God and trust his good purposes in pain, or do we love his gifts more, and get angry when he takes them away?....
For those who believe that God rules purposefully and wisely over all things, our response to loss is a signal of how much idolatry is in our souls. Do we really treasure what we have lost more than God and his wisdom? If we find ourselves excessively angry or resentful or bitter, it may well show that we love God less that what we lost. This is a very precious discovery, because it enables us to repent and seek to cherish Christ as we ought, rather than being deceived into thinking all is well.
But Open Theism denies that God always has a wise purpose in our calamities ("God does not have a specific divine purpose for each and every occurrence of evil"), and so it obscures the test of our idolatrous hearts. Open Theism does not encourage us to see or savor the merciful designs of God in our pain. It teaches that there is either no design or that the design of the evil done against us is ultimately owing to Satan or evil men ("The ultimate reason behind all evil in the world is found in Satan, not God").
Therefore, we may be so angry with Satan and with evil people (which is legitimate up to a point), that we fail to ask whether our anger reflects an excessive attachment to what we just lost. But if, contrary to Open Theism, we must reckon with the fact that God's wisdom is the ultimate reason we lost our treasure, then we will be forced to do the very valuable act of testing our hearts to see if we loved something on earth more than the wisdom of God….
Not believing that God has a wise purpose for every event helps conceal our idolatries. Thus Open Theism, against all its conscious designs, tends to undermine a means of grace that our deceptive hearts need.
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/fresh_words/2002/041002.html
------------------------
Thoughts?
Tom
Love never ends
Edited by - TGB on 01/11/2003 10:52:10 AM
Edited by - TGB on 01/11/2003 11:07:03 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/11/2003 7:33 AM (GMT -6) | | BOTH the "classic" view (as with Piper) ANd the "open" view (as with this board) seem vey nominalizing. Piper make seom really good points above, which framed as he frames them I find myself less likeely to agree with. Part of whta I mean by nominalizing is the focus on the numericity of "every event" rather than the spanning quality of "every event." There's the rub. But I constantly see the "open" view doing the same thing. When Piper above says "a wise purpose for every event" IT ALL DEPENDS. It depends on whether the eMpHaSiS is placed on the "a wise purpose" (where i think it should be placed) or on the "for every event" (which is true, but is also in clear danger of being nominalized.)
Is further clarification needed?
Al
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 1/11/2003 8:16 AM (GMT -6) | | I think Al is referring to the problems of both extremes of understanding God's sovereignty and Man's free will, which Norm Geisler succinctly writes about in "Chosen But Free".
I believe there is a third understanding as opposed to John Piper's belief and the open view belief, which Geisler calls the "Balanced Approach" that takes into consideration both God's sovereignty and Man's free will.
AL: "BOTH the "classic" view (as with Piper) ANd the "open" view (as with this board) seem vey nominalizing."
SIM: Al, are we talking about God's allowing versus causing of events?
Have you read Geisler, Al? If so, comments?
SIM
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/11/2003 8:39 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
But in reality our pain and losses are always a test of how much we treasure the all-wise, all-governing God in comparison to what we have lost.
I'm always skeptical whenever someone uses the term "always". Always.
Edited by - JET on 01/11/2003 1:40:06 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/11/2003 2:38 PM (GMT -6) | | I've been on this site now for about, oh, a little less than a year and a half. I can honestly say now that I'm burned out in some of the so-called well-written responses opposing open theism. When they really are well-written and thought out, it's a different story, but just look at the opening line of the quote from Piper as per Tom's post:
"Open theism may help conceal deep idolatry in the soul. One of the great needs of our souls is to know if we treasure anything on earth more than we treasure Christ. Treasuring anyone or anything more than Christ is idolatry."
Right there and then, every Christian who holds to the open thiesm view is tossed deep into the "Pit of the Idolaters." He treasures open theism (or some bi-product of it) more than he treasures Christ. He is . . . an . . . IDOLATER (in other words). And then Piper has to toss in Paul as the Convictor: "Put to death therefore what is earthly in you . . . covetousness, which is idolatry." Oh, and then some more of the "Yeah, yeah, what Paul said" stuff when Piper says, "If covetousness is idolatry, then desiring earthly things more than we desire God is idolatry. That means we must be more satisfied in Christ and his wisdom than we are in all our relationships and accomplishments and possessions on earth."
I won't even bother with the rest of the post. Suffice to say that if Piper thinks I or anyone other open theist--those of us who greatly love God, and are committed to our Lord Jesus Christ til death does us part--can get away idolatry anymore than Piper himself can, he's missed the boat of both what open theism is, for pete's sake, and who we are who hold to it. And this is exactly what has happened.
Okay, I just can't stop here. Just look for yourself at the second paragraph of Piper's statement:
"Now how does Open Theism help us conceal from ourselves the idolatries in our souls. It ascribes ultimate causality for many calamities and evils to Satan or the autonomous will of man, not finally to the all-disposing counsel and wisdom of God above and behind Satan…."
First, this is theodicy, NOT a concept of what the open view is. Hey, may by some open theists believe it, maybe some don't. But it's NOT the open view itself, and it's certainly not a bi-product of it. Oh, but let's not stop here, let's move on to a little more from the third paragraph:
"Therefore it asserts that God's wisdom does not hold final sway (Rom. 11:33-36), and thus God is not fulfilling a plan for our good in all our miseries (Jeremiah 29:11; 32:40). Open Theism implies, therefore, that we should not think about the wisdom of God's purpose in causing or permitting our calamities. In other words, Open Theism discourages us from asking what sanctifying purpose God may have in ordaining that our misery come about."
Unbelievable (I really am burned out on this. I'm sorry for being so sarcastic, folks.) "Open theism," he says, "discourages us from asking what sanctifying purpose God may have in ordaining that our misery come about." This is theodicy, not the open view. But just for the record that this is NOT what all open theists believe, I readily acknowlege Paul's thorn in the flesh as being absolutely vital (it was, after all, in God's wisdom to allow it) so that Paul would stay humble. Paul was fortunate; God apparently told Paul why God was allowing it. But for Job it never states that Job knew what was going on. But I still recognize and understand that God was after something very, very precious and important in allowing Job's suffering. Again, though, this is theodicy, not the open view or a bi-product thereof.
Now watch this. Just watch this! A few paragraphs down, Piper says this:
"But Open Theism denies that God always has a wise purpose in our calamities following right on the heals of ("God does not have a specific divine purpose for each and every occurrence of evil")"
First, I yell it out again: THEODICY, THEODICY, and for the third time, THEODICY (I'm too pooped to use the bigger fonts!). Second, Open theism has nothing to do with believing that God may have or not have a wise purpose in our calamities. And please, MR. PIPER, SIR, you MUST ammend your statement attributing TO EVERY open theist the belief that "God does not have a divine purpose for each and every occurence of evil." Some of us open theists may believe this, but some of us open theists may not believe this. This, brother Piper, is theodicy. Theodicy, I tell you! Not open theism.
(Say, am I givin' it to the boy or what!)
Toward the end of the "story", Piper says this:
"Therefore, we may be so angry with Satan and with evil people (which is legitimate up to a point), that we fail to ask whether our anger reflects an excessive attachment to what we just lost."
I see, only an open theist might ever be challenged in this manner.
"But if, contrary to Open Theism, we must reckon with the fact that God's wisdom is the ultimate reason we lost our treasure, then we will be forced to do the very valuable act of testing our hearts to see if we loved something on earth more than the wisdom of God…."
Again, I see. Only an open theist would never test his heart before God to see if he's treasured anything equal to or more than God Himself. What an error in thinking on behalf of Piper. What an error.
I don't think I've ever been this sarcastic in my response to those who oppose the open view with this kind of . . . not-even-related-to-open-theism discourse. Stuff happens, I guess. It's all this idolatry in my heart. It's open theism, I tell you, OPEN THEISM . . . IT'S AFTER ME!
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 01/11/2003 7:44:21 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/11/2003 6:20 PM (GMT -6) | | First, Starkman, I'm with you. That Piper-piece did describe "THEODICY." But sometimes I'm seeing theodicy slipping into "Open" dialogs. THAT becomes the job of those who proffer an "open" view to differentiate. (Piper's merely has to warn his flock against the ills of theodicy. Whether he gets the name right is a second matter.)
SIM: I don't think I was "talking about God's allowing versus causing of events." I'm set for bed--therefore will answer a bit abstractly. But 'allowing versus causing' seems to also fit into that nominal scale. Bot "allowing" and "causing" fit a determining by a non-creator. I'll have to return tomorrow. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/12/2003 2:16 AM (GMT -6) | | SIM, here are some notes I wrote in pencil on the back of a church bullitin from July of 2002; the pastor's coments (a Calvin Seminary grad.):
- depth of need (accurate reading)
- Our prayers corrected by God's fulfillments
- (revise our understanding of what we need--of our selfish reading)
- We know for sure only the general theme--God works for the good. All we can do is trust God's thoughts -- We can never read them (God's thoughts).
- God always fulfills the intention of our need.
- Trust
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/12/2003 2:18 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
SIM: I don't think I was "talking about God's allowing versus causing of events."
Al: I'm set for bed--therefore will answer a bit abstractly. But 'allowing versus causing' seems to also fit into that nominal scale. Bot "allowing" and "causing" fit a determining by a non-creator. I'll have to return tomorrow.
I think that the sermon notes above do a better job of excaping the nominalizing-trap than the 'allowing versus causing' rhetoric that we often hear. That rhetoric, I think, continues to be part of the problem; not its solution.
I'f you've got moldy cheese you have to cut ALL the mold off.
Al | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/12/2003 2:47 AM (GMT -6) | | I tend to see more of a connection between the open view and theodicy. Piper correctly states that the open view:
quote:
ascribes ultimate causality for many calamities and evils to Satan or the autonomous will of man, not finally to the all-disposing counsel and wisdom of God above and behind Satan…
Here, Piper is merely describing libertarian freedom.
Piper then argues:
1. Our pain and losses are always a test of how much we treasure God in comparison to what we have lost (i.e. a "test of our idolatrous hearts").
2. Those who do not believe (1), (e.g. those who believe that pain and loss may sometimes be the result of libertarian freedom) will be less inclined to think about God's purpose in their calamities.
3. Those who are less inclined to think about God's purpose in their calamities are less likely to pass the "test of their idolatrous hearts".
4. Open theists believe that their pain and losses may sometimes be the result of libertarian freedom.
5. Therefore, open theists are less inclined to think about God's purpose in their calamities.
6. Therefore, open theists are less likely to pass the "test of their idolatrous hearts".
I see lots of problems with this.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/12/2003 3:11 AM (GMT -6) | | 1. The true God is love.
2. A god who is the ultimate cause of all evil is not love.
3. Those who believe in a god who is not love are idolatrous.
4. Piper believes in a god who is the ultimate cause of all evil.
5. Therefore, Piper believes in a god who is not love.
6. Therefore, Piper is idolatrous.
You can argue all sorts of silly things when: (1) your entire argument assumes the truth of a premise that is the crux of the underlying dispute and (2) you make unwarranted, generalized assumptions about those who disagree with you.
Edited by - JET on 01/12/2003 08:25:05 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 1/12/2003 10:54 AM (GMT -6) | | 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.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/12/2003 12:21 PM (GMT -6) | | I really struggle with knowing whether and just how to respond to Piper’s thoughts. I wondered whether to post them here or not. He writes well, is a blessing to many, and has many good thoughts that challenge and encourage me. But his comments here leave me scratching my head.
Here’s what I hear Piper essentially saying:
First, unless God is believed to have determined my suffering, God cannot be believed to be at all present in my suffering working redemptively and purposefully to bring about some good.
Secondly, unless I believe God to have determined my suffering for a specific purpose, I cannot ponder the reasons for such suffering, cannot prayerfully search my heart in the context of such suffering, and so can discover nothing about the hidden deceitfulness of my heart in response to such suffering.
This is so utterly off, so demonstrably false, such nonsense, I can hardly believe Piper wrote it.
I can’t think of one good reason for believing Piper to be correct or one good analogy that supports him. Assuming I personally suffered greatly in 9/11, why would believing that Satan and evil persons were the ultimate explanation for that tragedy, and that God did all he could do to prevent it, incline me to not believe God is responding purposefully and redemptively or predispose me to ignore the state of my own heart and life as a result? 9/11 may bring to light some hidden prejudice I have for a particular class of people (Arabs). The loss of my investments or business, though believed to have come about as the result of evil intentions NOT ultimately carrying out God’s purposes, may nevertheless bring to light my hidden love of status or some hidden dependence upon material gain. There’s no good reason to believe that the hidden idols of my heart may not be revealed as I experience and respond to evil and suffering (my own and that of others) on the assumption that God is NOT compatibilistically involved in bringing such evil about, that God did all he could to prevent it in fact, but that God wants to respond by bringing the most possible good out of it now that it has happened.
I recall a footnote in Doc’s SPE: “It is difficult to imagine a weaker view of God’s sovereignty than that which views him as capable only of deterministic ways of relating to creation.” Why in the world believe that God is so limited, so short on resources, so inept and uncreative a God as to imagine him able to bring good out of evil only if he ordains the evil? What prevents me, given the belief that God is not the ultimate disposer of all evil, from searching my heart at any given moment in time, especially in light of my own suffering and pain, and asking God to reveal and purify it?
Like I said in the “Sovereignty or Trust” thread, questions like Piper’s, that is, questions which make direct claims about the perceived implications of a belief for one’s life, are not answered by academic arguments ultimately. They are answered by observing the behavior in question. Piper’s comments amount to a claim that open theists love Jesus less and harbor deceit and idolatry in their lives more than do he and others who agree with his theology.
Besides not even forming a valid argument, Piper’s comments reveal a sad narrow-mindedness.
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/12/2003 12:26 PM (GMT -6) | | That's funny - I cannot fathom a God who has no control over the rapists and murderers, etc. Sometimes the only way to get through such horrors is to trust that God is in control and has divine wisdom and reason for allowing things to happen.
There's always a way to counterargue someone's points. It's fun to debate but I do not believe we will ever get to the definitive answer some of us are looking for.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/12/2003 12:33 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
That's funny - I cannot fathom a God who has no control over the rapists and murderers, etc. Sometimes the only way to get through such horrors is to trust that God is in control and has divine wisdom and reason for allowing things to happen.
There's always a way to counterargue someone's points. It's fun to debate but I do not believe we will ever get to the definitive answer some of us are looking for.
ReasonableDoubt-
Two questions. First, can you not fathom a God who limits his control over people because he wishes them to freely decide to love and obey him? How is that "unfathomable"? Secondly, and more importantly, do you or do you not agree with Piper that open theists are less able, because of their beliefs, to discover and deal with the hidden idols of their lives?
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/12/2003 2:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Aren't there many Christians who are not open theists who would disagree with Piper's universal statement that "[o]ur pain and losses are always a test of how much we treasure...God in comparison to what we have lost."
Wouldn't Piper's arguement apply equally to them as to open theists?
Why do you think Piper addresses his arguement only to open theism?
What about Molinists, for example? Molinists account for evil by holding that God actualizes the best possible world given the counterfactuals of freedom that God must deal with. Wouldn't Piper's argument apply to them?
Doesn't Piper's argument apply to anyone who advances the freewill defense to the probelm of evil?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/12/2003 7:08 PM (GMT -6) | | JET: Aren't there many Christians who are not open theists who would disagree with Piper's universal statement that "[o]ur pain and losses are always a test of how much we treasure...God in comparison to what we have lost."
Tom: Actually, I do think our pain and losses always provide, or become, a test of our character. They are always a context that reveals how much we treasure God in comparison to what we have lost. I just don't think that in order for this to be true it must also be true that God ordains all our pain and losses. In other words, every evil that touches us, with it's pain and loss, provides us a choice we MUST make. And choices reveal who we are. How will we respond? We COULD become bitter or we COULD remain trusting. Choices like this are always present when we experience pain and losses, and so our pain and losses always become the testing ground of character even though agents other than God are ultimately responsible for the evil.
Sometimes all Arminians seem to be swept up in Piper's comments. But he does seem to let traditional Arminians off the hook with, "Open Theism implies, therefore, that we should not think about the wisdom of God's purpose in causing or permitting our calamities." See? If you believe God specifically "permits" evil then your more likely to be free of your hidden idols. It seems to be only OVers he wants to target.
Tom
Love never ends
Edited by - TGB on 01/13/2003 12:24:39 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chucks3371
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 28
| Posted 1/12/2003 7:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Bonhoeffer:
quote:
God allows himself to be edged out of the world and on to the cross. God is weak and powerless in the world, and that is exactly the way, the only way, in which he can be with us and help us. Matthew 8:17 makes it crystal clear that it is not by his omnipotence that Christ helps us, but by his weakness and suffering ... Man's religiosity makes him look in his distress to the power of God in the world; he uses God as a Deus ex machina. The Bible however, directs him to the powerlessness and suffering of God; only a suffering God can help.
...
Christians range themselves with God in his suffering; that is what distinguishes them from the heathen. As Jesus asked in Gethsemane, 'Could ye not watch with me one hour?' That is the exact opposite of what the religious man expects from God. Man is challenged to participate in the sufferings of God at the hands of a godless world.
He must therefore plunge himself into the life of a godless world, without attempting to gloss over its ungodliness with a veneer of religion or trying to transfigure it. He must live a 'worldly' life and so participate in the suffering of God. He may live a worldly life as one emancipated form all false religions and obligations. To be a Christian does not mean to be religious in a particular way, to cultivate some particular form of asceticism, but to be a man [sic]. It is not some religious act which makes a Christian what he is, but participation in the suffering of God in the life of the world.
Piper is a religous man.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/13/2003 1:49 AM (GMT -6) | | | I guess I'll play the role of the 'sensitive' one. I'm wondering, Chucks, whether it whould be worded: "INSOFAR AS...THEN" P. is a R. man. (I see he didn't "name names"; so perhaps this site shouldn't condemn.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chucks3371
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 28
| Posted 1/13/2003 3:48 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I guess I'll play the role of the 'sensitive' one. I'm wondering, Chucks, whether it whould be worded: "INSOFAR AS...THEN" P. is a R. man. (I see he didn't "name names"; so perhaps this site shouldn't condemn.)
It's a condemnation in your own mind, Sir. Being called "religious" is not a condemnation whereas the accusation of "idolatrous" is a condemnation.
It's possibly a condemnation insofar as you assume Bonhoeffer is correct and Piper is not. I presume that Piper -- and many others -- would disagree.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/13/2003 4:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Two questions. First, can you not fathom a God who limits his control over people because he wishes them to freely decide to love and obey him? How is that "unfathomable"? Secondly, and more importantly, do you or do you not agree with Piper that open theists are less able, because of their beliefs, to discover and deal with the hidden idols of their lives?
Tom
You're twisting what I said. I cannot fathom a God who is limited to reacting to what we humans do. Whether he is limiting himself or not is irrelevant. It's hard for me to trust in a God who is not "running the show" so to speak. 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. It wasn't that God was helpless against Hitler to stop it. If he was, what kind of power does God have?
On your second point, I do not agree that open theists are less able to deal with hidden idols in their lives. Whatever your view about the nature of God, there will be hidden idols in one's life that one will have to struggle with. but I am leaning toward the orthodox belief in the nature of God. I think that open theists are a group of unorthodox believers- whether their view will eventually become orthodox is anyone's guess. But for the time being, the traditional view of God which has been the official position of theism (and the major monotheistic religions) is the one that makes the most sense to me.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
fyodor
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 1/13/2003 4:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Piper:
quote:
But Open Theism denies that God always has a wise purpose in our calamities ("God does not have a specific divine purpose for each and every occurrence of evil"), and so it obscures the test of our idolatrous hearts. Open Theism does not encourage us to see or savor the merciful designs of God in our pain. It teaches that there is either no design or that the design of the evil done against us is ultimately owing to Satan or evil men ("The ultimate reason behind all evil in the world is found in Satan, not God").
I don't get it.
If God is behind each and every occurrence of evil with a "specific divine purpose," what is the point of Christ? Christ would then have been positioned by God against the specific divine plan of God. In a sense, Christ would have come to save us from himself (God). Who is Satan, and why does he get mentioned so much in the Bible in association with evil? Wouldn't Satan have to be an entirely other nature of God which handles the "specific divine purpose for each and every occurrence of evil." A quadrinity? If God is indeed the designer of a plan in which he orchestrates evil for his specific purpose then the fall described in Genesis 1-3, would be falling from and into and not out of God's divine plan.
>>>"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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/13/2003 5:03 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt: You're twisting what I said.
Tom: Sorry. Not intentional. I do try to understand.
ReasonableDoubt: I cannot fathom a God who is limited to reacting to what we humans do.
Tom: I don’t think God is “limited” to reacting to what we do. All I argue is that he CAN respond to what we do. If he is able, among many other things, to respond to us at all, I’m happy.
ReasonableDoubt: Whether he is limiting himself or not is irrelevant.
Tom: Oh but it’s very relevant. There’s a world of difference between a God who chooses to do less than he is able to do vs. a God who is unable to do what he chooses. Self-limitation for great and loving purposes is a great and loving thing. Being limited in the exercise of your abilities by factors outside one’s self and against ones will is a weakness indeed.
ReasonableDoubt: It's hard for me to trust in a God who is not "running the show" so to speak.
Tom: Play chess? Ever play somebody very good? I did. Shoot, the guy knew all the possible moves I could make. I was free to move in ways not determined by him, but it didn’t matter. He was in control of the overall game. Who would win was never in doubt. Why cannot God be “in control” while allowing us a finite measure of genuine freedom, even if that’s freedom to move against him?
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.
ReasonableDoubt: It wasn't that God was helpless against Hitler to stop it. If he was, what kind of power does God have?
Tom: Agreed. As an open theist I don’t believe God is “helpless.” I do believe though that when he gives us freedom to act, he neither exhaustively determines how we use it nor does he revoke it the first time we misuse it. I think this would apply to Hitler’s misuse of his freedom.
ReasonableDoubt: On your second point, I do not agree that open theists are less able to deal with hidden idols in their lives.
Tom: Thank you.
Tom 
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 1/13/2003 5:36 AM (GMT -6) | | COMMENTS WANTED BY OPEN VIEW BELIEVERS:
I don't know if this is accurate thinking, but it has occurred to me in reading your posts, Tom, and some other OV believers, that while both the "classical" (and by classical I mean the conservative balanced belief that God is in control AND we are responsible) and the "neotheistic" views believe in the sovereignty of God, the primary difference between your view of God's control, and my view is that while I believe that God controls within the freely chosen act, you believe that God's control is external to each free choice. I.e.,He sometimes controls a person's actions, but usually allows for libertarian-(complete?)-freedom within each choice.
I hope the above is clearer than it appears to me.
Am I accurate in the OV belief?
SIM
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/13/2003 9:16 AM (GMT -6) | | SIM,
You said, the primary difference between your view of God's control, and my view is that while I believe that God controls within the freely chosen act, you believe that God's control is external to each free choice. I.e.,He sometimes controls a person's actions, but usually allows for libertarian-(complete?)-freedom within each choice.
More specifically, maybe, is not the issue of control, but of determinism (exhaustive) verses libertarian freedom: That God controls things, all things, is a given. The open theist merely believes that God controls everything IN VIEW OF the freedom He's given humanity.
I've said this before, but it's well worth repeating (well, I think it's well worth repeating, but maybe no one else does. Maybe someone does [just out of pity for me!]): when someone who holds the classic conception of God's control comes into the hearing of the open view, one of the first, if not the first, immediately thoughts of this person is is couched in the form of a threat; if God does not control every single iota of a person's life--his thoughts, words, actions, and deeds), then God must not be in control at all.
Well, for the sake of argument, what if it is really true that God doesn't know the future exhaustively? Do we really think that He's so inept because of this that He'll flub it up, but good? Do we really think that God absolutely has to know the future exhaustively or He'll just never be able to keep things in order? You see, this is where the rubber meets the road. Our concept of God's control doesn't challenge us if we think everything's already set and settled. (Forget this idea that we're responsible regardless. That has nothing to do with consideration for God's control here.)
Realistically, though, exactly how much control does it take to run the show if one already knows what's going to happen? Further, since God already knows what's going to happen, how did he insure it was going to take place and end the way He wanted it to if it's already settled? Wait . . . okay, God's able to both know what's going to happen and jump on in the game and insure it's going to happen . . . things that haven't even happened are settled because God made them happen. And on and on this goes, when the simplicity (though also not without its challenges) of how God interacts with people seems to indicate He doesn't know all of the future but is still in mighty control of it. This is really the down-to-earth fact of the control issue between the classic and open views. But it's an empty fact of fiction; there simply is no less control on behalf of the Mighty God within the open view than there is within the classical view.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 1/13/2003 11:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom
The more open view is examined and the differences pointed out the more people who never knew there was another view of God will have an opportunity to decide. The article just keeps digging the hole deeper for the classical view. The Holy Spirit is at work and He will bring to remembrance the scriptures.
Fyodor's post makes the most sense to me.
My version of Fyodor's post is, if God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself then who was in those He set free in His earthly ministry? Was it God constraining inwardly those in bondage and God constraining outwardly through Christ? No, He went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed with the devil. Now you would have to do double exegesis in order to put God working incognito behind the devil for evil, but the classical view is saying that ever more loudly. Paul in the Ephesian letter told the Gentiles in chapter two that before their belief in Jesus they were without God in the world. As a young Christian I never fully accepted either Calvinist or the Armenian view of God's foreknowledge. I couldn't explain why my heart wouldn't take on the subject. I wish this discussion had been open for discussion at that time. Anyway, Tom thanks for posting the article and for your comments one and all, it is a good fight of faith, this warring of the mind.
Christ is the light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Ron Sirkel | | Back to Top | | |
| 108 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:00 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|