 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 5:27 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message
Wislawa
01/23/01 8:26 PM
The Meta-narratives Face Off!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O.K. so I’m going to try something that might flop so have mercy. It seems that in the anthropomorphic treads two distinct meta-narratives have emerged and I would like to contrast the one to the other and see if this contrast will reveal which view of God is more sovereign. Whether these meta-narratives are an a priori choice (hey, I too try to avoid a priori points but sometimes they are unavoidable) as Mephi claims, or conclusions as Dr. Boyd claims will, I think, not come into play here. Only sovereignty counts! (Wow now I’m sounding like a few theologians I know [don’t worry Mephi or Lion-Lamb I don’t by a long shot group you guys in with Piper or Ware. You guys are WAY to cool for them!] ). Anyway onto the experiment!
One last preliminary word. I KNOW that I haven’t qualified everything to the degree that it needs to be. Again cut me some slack, show some mercy, let me go, ouch—hey I said let me go! I also don’t know how to avoid generalizing positioning since there are soooooo many variations as stuff so I just picked on R.C. Sproul because I don’t like him at all (o.k. I like him but only a little bit). He by no way represents all classical theists! Anyway if anyone can pick up on what I am trying to do and you want to simplify my argument please do. So here we go----
First step
I would like to split the meta-narratives into three parts: 1) Their view of God’s sovereignty, 2) Their view of creation, 3) Their view of God’s love.
A) THE CLASSICAL VIEW:
A1)GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY: God’s sovereignty exists in His ability to control every detail of His creation. If His ability to control every detail of His creation is taken away he is no longer sovereign by this definition. Further more if this definition of sovereignty is a necessary condition for being God than He is no longer God either. “If there is any part of creation outside of God’s sovereignty, that God is simply not sovereign. If God is not sovereign, then He is not God.” –R.C. Sproul ‘Chosen by God’ page 26. “If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled. Perhaps that one maverick molecule will lay waste all thee grand and glorious plans that God has mad and promised to us…Maybe that one molecule will be the thing that prevents Christ from returning.” –R.C. Sproul as well (I don’t know where this quote was from. Li’l help?)
A2) CREATION: Although on one level creation appears very complex and keeps us fascinated with it’s makeup and our finite ability to understand the world it is in reality very simple: all of creation is under God’s absolute meticulous control. If possibilities exist at all they can never become actualities.
A3) GOD’S LOVE: God’s love is very complex and sometimes very unlike what we call love. We cannot understand God’s love or why brutally raping and murdering little children is loving but it is because God’ willed it, or at least allowed it, for a good and loving reason.
B) THE OPEN VIEW:
B1) GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY: God doesn’t control every tiny detail, rather the creation is a quasi-democratic interaction and interference consisting of roughly six billion free human wills, who knows how many free angelic wills (we are given the impression that there are ton of them), some of which are evil demon types, one really powerful angel we can Satan, and last but not least one sovereign God (played by Yahweh Himself). On top of this there is the interactions of animals which may or may not have limited ability to control themselves or make choices are probably not morally responsible. Then there are plants, what’s up with plants? And of course good ol’ matter which seems to obey some funky laws. From within this creation God macro-manages history. He is sovereign in His omni-resourcefulness, His independence from His creation (unlike process theology), His ability to unilaterally control creation if He wants to, but most of all His ability to get things done through the persuasive power of His magnificent love.
B2) CREATION: Creation is very complex, indeed it is too complex for us to understand very much at all about it. In order to know why one event took place the way it did we would require the history of every event of history and even then part of the reason the event took place can only be located in the free will of free creatures. Reality is made up of both actualities and actual possibilities.
B3) GOD’S LOVE: God’s love is simple. It acts like what we commonly call love. No ultimate good and loving reason need hide behind every event that ever took place in history. His love doesn’t baffle (except in the way that profound things baffle, or the way that grace is amazing etc.) What I mean is that any intelligent, sensitive nine-year-old child can recognize love when she sees it and that what see recognizes as love really is love.
Second step
So now, I know that these descriptions have not been very thorough (sorry Mephi) and probably not fair either. But you can fix them where they are lacking in your head because the really important part is coming up. Again I know this isn’t a very good post (I haven’t had much sleep in a loooooooong time) but if you can see what I’m getting at maybe you can post a better version of it. So here is the really important part: lets pit the two meta-narratives against each other. Here is the challenge that I would give to each view of God of each narrative: Can you create the creation of the other narrative?
In other words…….bachelor number one (The Classical View of God) can you create the world of bachelor number two (The Open View of Creation)? Can A1 create B2? And…….bachelor number two (The Open View of God) can you create the world of bachelor number one (The Classical View of Creation)? Can B1 create A2?
It seems to me that the God of open theism is more sovereign that the God of classical theism because He COULD HAVE created a world in which He controlled every little detail the way R.C. Sproul want’s Him to but he DIDN’T HAVE TO. The God of open theism has options and CAN ALSO create the world of open theism. Having more options gives one more power, hence more sovereign (when we run out of options we feel powerless). The God of classical theism, on the other hand lacks this option. He must create the world exactly one way with him in control of every detail. When challenged to create the world of open theism He cannot. This, to me at least, is a sing of weakness.
So I feel pretty bad about this post. I don’t think it was very clear and even if it was I still don’t know it the argument holds. Let me know what ya’ll think and remember SHOW MERCY TOWARDS ME!!!
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
debcita
01/24/01 9:00 PM
RE: The Meta-narratives Face Off!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wislawa, did I ever tell you how much I like your poetry ? Hasty or not, this is of interest.
I'm not a theologian and have not read most of the anthropomorphic threads, but that disability aside, I'm not sure if we can contain centuries of theology in one fixed view on these three large topics. Being that I'm not OVT, I suppose that puts me in the first camp if we are going to polarize. If so, I find this not only simplified but off. However, Wislawa, I know there are those who would agree with A1-A3, while perhaps not stating they agree. What I mean is, when I've gone through serious trials, I end up with some Job's counselors, which is, to me, what A3 represents. I only have a few minutes, so let me suggest some emendations to A3. Those more experienced here and more targeted (i.e., Mephi2K and Lion Lamb) may feel free to disagree with me entirely. I hope they will add, as I am going for simplicity now:
You suggest:
A3) GOD’S LOVE: God’s love is very complex and sometimes very unlike what we call love. We cannot understand God’s love or why brutally raping and murdering little children is loving but it is because God’ willed it, or at least allowed it, for a good and loving reason. I suggest (off the top of my head):
A3) GOD'S LOVE: Agape and Agapao, by their very definitions (those who are studied in Greek, feel free to correct me), involve a love outside of the loves normally known between humans. Human loves, such as the love between father and son/daughter and husband and wife are a reflection of God's love, but this reflection is dim, limited and distorted by the fall. Agape and agapao involve a direction of the will towards the loved one, finding ones joy in the loved one, esteeming the loved one, etc. We know this is a passionate and attentive love which rejoices in us but also gives us quiet space (for instance, passages about apple of the eye such as Zechariah 2:8 and then also zephaniah 3:17). From the definition, we know it also includes a generosity and tenderness that is not shown by doing what the person loved desires but by doing what God deems as needed by the one he loves (this would especially be reflected in good parenting but is of a larger scope than we can humanly imagine). Humans have free will and have chosen satan's deceptive distortions over God's good gifts (i.e., the fall). Just as a group of angels (now demons) chose to allow evil into their world (causing their fall from heaven), Adam and Eve allowed evil into their world by listening to its influence through the serpent and, therefore, into the world which all of their descendants inhabit. Not only is evil in the world, but Satan, for an unspecified length of time has been allowed to be the prince of this world according to whatever model God set in place from the beginning (this model, I suggest, we can only know in part because of our finite human abilities, but God reveals much to us through the bible and his spirit in us). God has reached down to man and offered him a position of sonship, justified redemption, and royalty in his kingdom through Jesus Christ. There is a spiritual war, and we have been given power to combat evil through prayer and truth and testimony and obedience. This is the privilege we know in our fallen condition. According to biblical accounts (for ex, Job and Daniel), God (1)allows some trials for no apparent human reason aside from the multiplied blessings when they are over (in this world and the next) and the supernaturally magnified power of praise in these conditions (i.e., the sacrifice of praise, which is not just something that God desires for his glory--which he would be fully justified in--being God, but it is also an incredibly powerful spiritual weapon that may accomplish far more than we ever could imagine in the heavenly realms for the sake of the world and certainly paves the way for our own salvation from various things that might hinder us personally as scripture makes clear) and He (2) has set up a particular battle plan among holy angels and demons that is in some respects contingent on humans although he knows the outcome and may possibly supersede his rules at moments as he sometimes has been known to do with his rules of nature. The terrors and pains of living in a corrupted world and of battling that corruption within our own selves are part of the deal. We are Christ's co-laborers in prayer, and in this way we are assisting the angelic armies. Prayer, testimony, truth, and obedience to the love and will of God can lessen this evil, but we all face evil and its effects, most notably--death. God allows evil to run its course and equips Christians to combat it with love and love's fruit. Jesus singles out child abuse as a despicable evil and something he hates, but he does provide the grace and truth which can transform the effects of these evils in a life into something good--into deeper joy, praise, honor, spiritual beauty, strong rootedness in his love as with an oak, compassion, etc., and these are things which follow us into eternity and which the easy life does not so readily provide (Isaiah 61). We know that God sees our suffering and grieves. Still, He does allow evil. Sometimes he wills it too. Throughout the Bible, Christianity is a religion of paradoxes--weak strength, suffering joy, etc. and in these paradoxes we find an element of God Himself, because these are experiences which transcend the normal human condition. That in itself does not explain away the suffering of the human condition. To seek to fully understand and compartmentalize where the spiritual battles intersect with God's discipline and will is a fruitless chase. The best place to learn a little something about how it all works is in experiencing God in our persons--through scripture, through meditation, and through warfare.
Oh, dear, I think I've gone a little too far.... But the proposed A3 did, after all, expect to wrap up a lot of things very neatly under God's love that could be disseminated among all of these categories.... I do often think of the aztecs and other tribal groups known for their constant carnage and, of course, of the holocaust. I do not say these things lightly or smugly. In my own struggles, God has been teaching me to lay off the mind idolatry a bit and to experience him more, and in that I am finding a firmer grasp of who he is and his ways, but I am young in really living the Christian life, there is so much I do not know, and words do not suffice....
Let me add, I believe the use of the word "control" in A1 and A2 needs a larger context. As it stands now, along these quotes and the open-view, "control" takes on an extra weightiness.
Thanks for the ears,
Deb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
01/24/01 10:59 PM
RE: The Meta-narratives Face Off!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wislawa, I don't have much to add here, but I really like your intuitions. Despite all their insistance that its not so, I can't help but see the God of classical theism, esp. Calvinism, as a very weak being. I can't for a moment see what is strong, mighty and glorious about a God who controls everything. And given the evil in the world he controls, I can't with integrity affirm that this God is perfectly good either.
But as to your most important insight, Wislawa, this God couldn't create an open world if he wanted to. If exhaustive foreknowledge (let alone predestination) is a necessary attribute of God, He couldn't experience the beauty of novelty, adventure, or surprise.
To me, the most fascinating thing about the debates between openness and classical folk on this site is the wide gulf in their fundamental intuitions about what constitutes God's "glory". (Ware's whole Book "God of a Lesser Glory" was nothing but one big complaint against Boyd's idea of sovereignty). What one calls "great" the other calls "weak."
Thanks for bringing this to the fore.
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:05 AM (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 |
|
|