 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 4:47 PM (GMT -6) |   | Message
TGB
03/03/01 5:53 AM
God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all-
There are a couple of interesting points Doc made in God at War that got me to thinking and bring me now to this post.
Chapter 3, note 67, a quote from Sauer (King, p. 73):
”He, sole Deity, obviously had the power to wrest this area of the universe from Satan, the rebel, simply by force. But this would have contradicted His own moral principles of government. His fundamental nature is innately moral, and so the laws governing His cosmic world-order must also be of a purely moral character.”
Q: What would have been immoral about God wresting back creation from Satan? If Satan is the “rebel,” pray tell, what moral principle made destroying him and his cohorts “on the spot” immoral. Sounds like God was under some moral obligation not to consign Satan and his angels immediately in eternal torment. I keep hearing this but have not yet heard WHAT moral principle necessitated God’s NOT immediately (before the creation of man and his fall) destroying rebel angelic powers.
Moving on to chapter 4, p. 132, Doc discusses Gen. 3.22, “The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.” My question: HOW did Adam and Eve in sinning become LIKE God and the angelic hosts? I would think they were far more LIKE God before sinning. If God is not sinful, in what sense did sin make Adam and Eve LIKE God? Somebody define this “likeness” for me.
Lastly, in chapter 9, p. 240, Doc says that in the crucifixion God was aiming to:
“…defeat once and for all his cosmic archenemy, Satan…and thereby to establish Christ as the legitimate ruler of the cosmos….”
Q: When was Christ NOT the legitimate ruler of the cosmos? And if Satan WAS the legitimate ruler of the cosmos, what morality (anywhere in the universe) would grant that a rebel of his sort had any legitimate claim to rule God’s creation?
I’m very comfortable with Doc’s views in God at War with the exception of his view that Satan was indeed the legitimate ruler of the cosmos and that God, due to his moral character, recognized Satan’s claim to the world (before the creation of man). It makes far greater sense of the warfare worldview if Satan is viewed as an illegitimate thief and usurper, with NO rightful claim to any of God’s world and that Christ came to destroy him and establish is rightful rule upon the earth.
What am I missing?
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
GregBoyd
03/04/01 7:18 AM
RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good questions TGB, as usual.
* Satan IS the ILLEGITIMATE ruler of the cosmos. That's why Christ came to dethrone him. The world belongs to God -- and he wants it back! Did I say Satan was the LEGITIMATE ruler of the world? There is one sense, however, in which Satan is the rightful ruler of the world. We surrendered OUR authority over to him. God created us to rule the world (as viceroys, administering HIS rule). But we gave this away. Lk 4:6. All the kingdoms HAVE BEEN GIVEN to Satan. We can perhaps think of this as a sort of legal thing. We handed over the deed to the earth. Jesus' incarnation, ministry, death and resurrection cancelled the dead (cf. Col 2:14-16).
* I love Sauer's book! I think it would indeed have violated God's moral principles to annihilate Satan and the fallen angels when they fell. AS I have argued on this board elsewhere (and will fully flesh out in Satan and the Problem of Evil), whatever "say so" God gave to spiritual beings, HE TRULY GAVE. This "say so" gave them the potential to freely align themselves with God (goodness, love) or not (evil, hatred). When they choose the latter, God CANNOT, without violating his own integrity, take it back. If he took freedom back because it was misused, he never really GAVE FREEDOM.
This is why I argue that the gift of freedom always involves risk.
* God's statement "they've become like one of us, knowing good and evil" is puzzelling. I agree with those scholars who see the original temptation "to know good and evil" as meaning something like "defining for themselves and experiencing on their own what is good and evil." In other words, it implies AUTONOMY from God. When they fell to temptation, they had become "like God" in that they now were, like God, autonomous. For God, this is a good thing. For humans, it is disastrous. If Adam and Eve had eaten of the tree of life in this condition, they'd be immortalized in this sorry state. So God kicks them out of the garden. (Irrelevant footnote: I don't know, and don't care, how much of this narrative is intended to be literal history or pictoral history, involving symbolic elements. It doesn't matter. It's all inspired).
Does this help TGB?
GB
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
03/04/01 1:57 PM
RE: RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg said:
"(Irrelevant footnote: I don't know, and don't care, how much of this narrative is intended to be literal history or pictoral history, involving symbolic elements. It doesn't matter. It's all inspired)."
So Greg or others, what does this say about the possibility of God using evolution in creation?
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
03/04/01 2:13 PM
RE: RE: RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For my two cents, I don't see anything IN PRINCIPLE that rules out God using some form of evolution to bring about those he dignifies with "the image of God." However, on purely scientific grounds, I find the case for evolution to be dubious, but the evidence for an old earth to be rather convincing. If someone reads the scientific evidence differently, I don't care.
My reasons for embracing the gap theory, by the way, are only a LITTLE influenced by the evidence for an old earth. Most of my reasons are exegetical.
Later
Greg
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
03/04/01 4:04 PM
RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm no theologian so this may be way off but for me part of them being like God in knowing God and evil comes from the word 'knowing'.
In the OT a man and woman who married 'knew' each other. They had an intimate knowledge of each other. So at first Adam and Eve 'knew' God but when they sinned they 'knew' evil. I think because God made humans with free will it entailed the possibility of humans rejecting him. When that happened God experinced evil.
Am I way off? What think ye?
springs
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
03/04/01 4:06 PM
RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ps
Course if Doc is right about the gap theory God experineced evil before hand when Sataniel fell.
Anybody else on how God knows evil?
springs
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
03/05/01 1:10 AM
RE: RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc-
Many thanks for the response.
I’m still a little confused, though. Looks to me like you’re equating “revoking free will” with “punishing rebellious behavior.” That is, we’re defining “irrevocability of free will” to mean “free will that’s free from consequences,” or “…free from the immediate experience of just consequences.” I have four kids. They have the freedom to exercise their wills in disobedience to me, but they always meet the consequences. That’s part of what it means to have “free will.” How would immediately destroying Satan (if such is the JUST CONESQUENCE of such an act of rebellion) have been a violation of God’s character? God is not “taking away” free will. He’s just requiring people to pay the just consequences for how they use it.
So, let me ask my question in a different way. Assuming that the eschatological lake of fire IS the just consequence for Satan’s rebellion, what makes this consequence “just” in the eschaton but “unjust” historically (i.e. when Satan rebelled)? If Satan DIDN’T deserve hell THEN, what has he done since then that will deserve hell? Was rebelling against God (and to his face at that) not deserving of hell-fire?
So, it would seem to me that if we argue “God could not have immediately required the just consequences of Satan’s rebellion” on the basis of the irrevocability of free will, then we are bound to maintain this eternally, and God then would never allowed to toss the creep in the fire. After all, it’s free will.
Again, how does “truly giving free will” exempt the agent from the just consequences of disobedience at ANY time? If the lake of fire is the “just consequence” of Satan’s rebellious act, then it’s always been just. In this case, perhaps God’s reason for postponing Satan’s appointment with the lake of fire is to be sought not in the supposed injustice of God’s acting immediately, but in his own free choice to wait. Why wait? I have no idea! All I do here is ask questions!
(I hear you’re acquainted with Gordon A. over at NCU. I’m thinking of sending my daughter there. I’ve got a friend (D. Adamson) who attends your church and is finishing up at NCU.)
Blessings,
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
BBBCanada
03/05/01 1:12 PM
God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Greg. Total agreement with ya. There is a really good book out called, "The Creationists" and they argue for an old earth. Young earth theorists don't have much historical backing. They are more of a recent development. Thanks again. You cleared up some confusion on my part. I have heard other theologians talk about evolution "being a possibility" but they never really went further than that.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
whasssuuuppp
03/05/01 3:00 PM
RE: RE: RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Tom, (I know you addressed your ? to doc but I'm going to take a try at it )
First off, I just gotta say that I love the questions you ask because you articulate some of the same things that I've got floating around my mind. That said, I'm going to try to give an answer that, for me, provides a "satisfying" answer on one level, but which still leaves some question unanswered.
You say:
"So, it would seem to me that if we argue “God could not have immediately required the just consequences of Satan’s rebellion” on the basis of the irrevocability of free will, then we are bound to maintain this eternally, and God then would never allowed to toss the creep in the fire. After all, it’s free will. Again, how does “truly giving free will” exempt the agent from the just consequences of disobedience at ANY time?"
Me says: One issue not well-articulated in God at War (but which will be discussed, in sounds like, in Satan and the Problem of Evil) is the idea that free will (i.e., power to influence) is FINITE. We exist for a matter of time, making decisions, going down paths, making more decisions, and so on, but at some point our free will "runs out," so to say. For some people this happens when they die, but for others I really think it happens long before they are 6 feet under (and for others, such as those who die before their characters are solidified, possibly in some other kind of place. Who knows?). We know this intuitively--as we get older the paths open to us narrow considerably. With each MAJOR decision we make, think of how many other doors are closed in the process.
Some philosopher (Aristotle? Someone help me out here) said this: "choices become habit, habit becomes character, and character becomes being." There is a point at which we don't choose our character any longer, it instead "chooses" us. This is why I think hell is, as C.S. Lewis said, locked from the inside. People in hell are solidified in a character AGAINST God, unable to any longer choose to love God.
So, this helps with the free will/power to influence question on some level, especially as it relates to people. People are given different levels of "power to influence" and so it takes longer for some people to "run out." So what about Satan? First, we need to remember that Satan was created with incredible power to influence, more than we can really even fathom because it can't relate to any level of human power. Second, we don't really know the parameters God set up with Satan in regards to his domain of influence, though we are given some hints--Satan is called the "ruler and power of the air," a "roaring lion," and one to whom "all the kingdoms of the world" have been given, the former prince of light. When Satan fell, everything under his domain suffered and continues to suffer.
And yet it seems that surely Satan's power would have run out BY NOW! On some estimations this guy has been around for billions of years. Isn't that enough? And, a harder question: isn't Satan's character, or all people's, SOLIDIFIED? The Bible seems pretty clear that it is. The only possible answer I have come up with is to think that perhaps "power to influence" and "character solidification" don't end congruously. It's like this--Satan's character was solidified long ago, but his power to influence, given by God, hasn't yet "run out." I'm not sure this works. Let me know what you think.
So God is NOT bound to eternally "put up" with Satan, or any person, for that matter. Our power to influence is finite, and the clock is ticking.
peace, ms. wassup
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
03/05/01 3:14 PM
RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom,
Holes galore. Water's flooding the hull. All hands on deck. Prepare the lifeboats. Abandon ship...
Meph.
PS:
To Whasssuuppp,
I certainly hope that this "hourglass" view of diminishing capacity for "free will" is not what Doc truly intends to argue. If so...sheesh...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
03/05/01 5:55 PM
RE: RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually Meph, it is precisely what I intend to argue... sheesh.
I think Whasssupp nailed it quite well. It WAS ARistotle, and then Augustine, and then Aquinas (and many others) who observed that choices become habit, habit becomes character and character becomes BEING. We become the decisions that we make. We get solidified. Freedom -- the power to have morally responsible "say so" in what traspires -- is finite. We are, after all, finite creatures.
I think Whasssup also addressed Tom's questions well regarding consequences of behavior. There WERE immediate consequences for Satan's rebellion, as there were for all the angels and all human rebells. But the issue is, do they nevertheless yet have "say-so" in what transpires. My claim is that if God genuinely gave genuinely free will to creatures, one of the immediate consequences for their misusing it can't be its total elimination. Yes there are consequences, now and later. But one of the "now" consequences can't be revoking the "say-so." In this case he never really gave it.
The only alternative to this, so far as I can is, is to hold that God allowed Satan to continue to use his will to afflict others because IT WAS BETTER this way (since God always does the good and wise thing). But I, for one, (and Waslawa for another) can't accept that the cosmos as a whole, through all of world history, is better off for all the evil that has been administered.
It's NOT better. Its far worse. But its better to have a world where this sort of evil is POSSIBLE than a world in which it is not. With C.S. Lewis, I'd argue that a world without freedom (viz. the possibility of evil) is hardly worth creating, for it would also be a world without love.
This may not be a perfect "ship" Mephi, but I think its the best ship afloat. If you've got a cruiser I don't know about, take me for a ride. (But as I understand you, it seems you've given up on the possibility of ships -- at least on the sea of the problem of evil. (:
later
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
03/05/01 6:47 PM
Semi-sheeshy response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc, you were sounding so Lutheran! Well, you definitely have tradition on your side, so I will only offer a semi-sheeshy response. (I just bought a dictionary of latin theological terms--yes, I'm a geek--and I'm going to try it out tonight. Here goes.) How do you distinguish between habitus acquisitus (character traits that are deepened via a person's regular practice of them--btw, Flannery O'Connor, catholic fiction writer, titled her autobiography, "Habit of Being") and habitus infusus (character traits that are infused in a person via God's grace apart from their works)? GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
MrIndifference
03/05/01 8:36 PM
Redemption for all of creation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My understatanding of the gap theory is that after the fall of Satan, God faught him and basically removed his power. God did not judge Satan at that point, not so much that he couldn't, but because He had a better plan. SALVATION of all creation... Man was created perfect. He was created to be the guardian over Satan and his cohorts. Though man was create perfect, he was created after the fact. I believe that though Satan was at bay at that point, creation as a whole had not been restored to it's origional splendor. There was still some sort of division between God and creation. Look at Revelation 5:8-10
8Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
9And they sang a new song, saying:
“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10 And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth.”
Looking at this passage you should notice that it was not man alone that was redemed by Christs crucifixion, but I believe all of creation. I am probably missing something here, but I hope you get the general idea.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
03/06/01 3:30 AM
RE: Semi-sheeshy response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“How do you distinguish between habitus acquisitus (character traits that are deepened via a person's regular practice of them…and habitus infusus (character traits that are infused in a person via God's grace apart from their works)?”
GDG-
I’d be very interested in pursuing this. In two days I begin teaching a course entitled “Spiritual Disciplines” (we’re using Dallas Willard’s Spirit of the Disciplines as a text). Great book!
Anyhow, Willard’s whole thesis is that God does not “infuse” new character apart from our involving ourselves via certain habits (the disciplines) in the process. The disciplines are the meeting point, where God’s grace is made available and our characters are transformed.
I’m not familiar with the classical definition of habitus infusus , but I would tend to disagree that God transforms our characters apart from the habitual practice of the disciplines. I don’t think this makes character transformation something we merit by works, anymore than salvation is something we merit by having to believe.
If I’m in another world let me know!
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ghost-dog-girl
03/06/01 8:12 AM
RE: RE: Semi-sheeshy response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom, your post would make my Lutheran professors freak. Personally, I find the distinction between habitus acquisitus and habitus infusus very important but very confusing. Hopefully doc can shed some light on this for us. In the mean time, I started a new thread on it called "Sanctification." Blessings, GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
mn777saint
03/06/01 9:33 AM
RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As a Man Thinkith in his heart so is he"
God Bless
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
WWPS
04/03/01 7:31 PM
RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
whasssuuuuppp said,
Some philosopher (Aristotle? Someone help me out here) said this: "choices become habit, habit becomes character, and character becomes being."
Actually, it was James in his book, where he said in James 1:15, "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."
WWPS
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Message
TGB
03/03/01 5:53 AM
God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all-
There are a couple of interesting points Doc made in God at War that got me to thinking and bring me now to this post.
Chapter 3, note 67, a quote from Sauer (King, p. 73):
”He, sole Deity, obviously had the power to wrest this area of the universe from Satan, the rebel, simply by force. But this would have contradicted His own moral principles of government. His fundamental nature is innately moral, and so the laws governing His cosmic world-order must also be of a purely moral character.”
Q: What would have been immoral about God wresting back creation from Satan? If Satan is the “rebel,” pray tell, what moral principle made destroying him and his cohorts “on the spot” immoral. Sounds like God was under some moral obligation not to consign Satan and his angels immediately in eternal torment. I keep hearing this but have not yet heard WHAT moral principle necessitated God’s NOT immediately (before the creation of man and his fall) destroying rebel angelic powers.
Moving on to chapter 4, p. 132, Doc discusses Gen. 3.22, “The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.” My question: HOW did Adam and Eve in sinning become LIKE God and the angelic hosts? I would think they were far more LIKE God before sinning. If God is not sinful, in what sense did sin make Adam and Eve LIKE God? Somebody define this “likeness” for me.
Lastly, in chapter 9, p. 240, Doc says that in the crucifixion God was aiming to:
“…defeat once and for all his cosmic archenemy, Satan…and thereby to establish Christ as the legitimate ruler of the cosmos….”
Q: When was Christ NOT the legitimate ruler of the cosmos? And if Satan WAS the legitimate ruler of the cosmos, what morality (anywhere in the universe) would grant that a rebel of his sort had any legitimate claim to rule God’s creation?
I’m very comfortable with Doc’s views in God at War with the exception of his view that Satan was indeed the legitimate ruler of the cosmos and that God, due to his moral character, recognized Satan’s claim to the world (before the creation of man). It makes far greater sense of the warfare worldview if Satan is viewed as an illegitimate thief and usurper, with NO rightful claim to any of God’s world and that Christ came to destroy him and establish is rightful rule upon the earth.
What am I missing?
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
GregBoyd
03/04/01 7:18 AM
RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good questions TGB, as usual.
* Satan IS the ILLEGITIMATE ruler of the cosmos. That's why Christ came to dethrone him. The world belongs to God -- and he wants it back! Did I say Satan was the LEGITIMATE ruler of the world? There is one sense, however, in which Satan is the rightful ruler of the world. We surrendered OUR authority over to him. God created us to rule the world (as viceroys, administering HIS rule). But we gave this away. Lk 4:6. All the kingdoms HAVE BEEN GIVEN to Satan. We can perhaps think of this as a sort of legal thing. We handed over the deed to the earth. Jesus' incarnation, ministry, death and resurrection cancelled the dead (cf. Col 2:14-16).
* I love Sauer's book! I think it would indeed have violated God's moral principles to annihilate Satan and the fallen angels when they fell. AS I have argued on this board elsewhere (and will fully flesh out in Satan and the Problem of Evil), whatever "say so" God gave to spiritual beings, HE TRULY GAVE. This "say so" gave them the potential to freely align themselves with God (goodness, love) or not (evil, hatred). When they choose the latter, God CANNOT, without violating his own integrity, take it back. If he took freedom back because it was misused, he never really GAVE FREEDOM.
This is why I argue that the gift of freedom always involves risk.
* God's statement "they've become like one of us, knowing good and evil" is puzzelling. I agree with those scholars who see the original temptation "to know good and evil" as meaning something like "defining for themselves and experiencing on their own what is good and evil." In other words, it implies AUTONOMY from God. When they fell to temptation, they had become "like God" in that they now were, like God, autonomous. For God, this is a good thing. For humans, it is disastrous. If Adam and Eve had eaten of the tree of life in this condition, they'd be immortalized in this sorry state. So God kicks them out of the garden. (Irrelevant footnote: I don't know, and don't care, how much of this narrative is intended to be literal history or pictoral history, involving symbolic elements. It doesn't matter. It's all inspired).
Does this help TGB?
GB
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
03/04/01 1:57 PM
RE: RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg said:
"(Irrelevant footnote: I don't know, and don't care, how much of this narrative is intended to be literal history or pictoral history, involving symbolic elements. It doesn't matter. It's all inspired)."
So Greg or others, what does this say about the possibility of God using evolution in creation?
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
03/04/01 2:13 PM
RE: RE: RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For my two cents, I don't see anything IN PRINCIPLE that rules out God using some form of evolution to bring about those he dignifies with "the image of God." However, on purely scientific grounds, I find the case for evolution to be dubious, but the evidence for an old earth to be rather convincing. If someone reads the scientific evidence differently, I don't care.
My reasons for embracing the gap theory, by the way, are only a LITTLE influenced by the evidence for an old earth. Most of my reasons are exegetical.
Later
Greg
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
03/04/01 4:04 PM
RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm no theologian so this may be way off but for me part of them being like God in knowing God and evil comes from the word 'knowing'.
In the OT a man and woman who married 'knew' each other. They had an intimate knowledge of each other. So at first Adam and Eve 'knew' God but when they sinned they 'knew' evil. I think because God made humans with free will it entailed the possibility of humans rejecting him. When that happened God experinced evil.
Am I way off? What think ye?
springs
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
03/04/01 4:06 PM
RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ps
Course if Doc is right about the gap theory God experineced evil before hand when Sataniel fell.
Anybody else on how God knows evil?
springs
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
03/05/01 1:10 AM
RE: RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc-
Many thanks for the response.
I’m still a little confused, though. Looks to me like you’re equating “revoking free will” with “punishing rebellious behavior.” That is, we’re defining “irrevocability of free will” to mean “free will that’s free from consequences,” or “…free from the immediate experience of just consequences.” I have four kids. They have the freedom to exercise their wills in disobedience to me, but they always meet the consequences. That’s part of what it means to have “free will.” How would immediately destroying Satan (if such is the JUST CONESQUENCE of such an act of rebellion) have been a violation of God’s character? God is not “taking away” free will. He’s just requiring people to pay the just consequences for how they use it.
So, let me ask my question in a different way. Assuming that the eschatological lake of fire IS the just consequence for Satan’s rebellion, what makes this consequence “just” in the eschaton but “unjust” historically (i.e. when Satan rebelled)? If Satan DIDN’T deserve hell THEN, what has he done since then that will deserve hell? Was rebelling against God (and to his face at that) not deserving of hell-fire?
So, it would seem to me that if we argue “God could not have immediately required the just consequences of Satan’s rebellion” on the basis of the irrevocability of free will, then we are bound to maintain this eternally, and God then would never allowed to toss the creep in the fire. After all, it’s free will.
Again, how does “truly giving free will” exempt the agent from the just consequences of disobedience at ANY time? If the lake of fire is the “just consequence” of Satan’s rebellious act, then it’s always been just. In this case, perhaps God’s reason for postponing Satan’s appointment with the lake of fire is to be sought not in the supposed injustice of God’s acting immediately, but in his own free choice to wait. Why wait? I have no idea! All I do here is ask questions!
(I hear you’re acquainted with Gordon A. over at NCU. I’m thinking of sending my daughter there. I’ve got a friend (D. Adamson) who attends your church and is finishing up at NCU.)
Blessings,
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
BBBCanada
03/05/01 1:12 PM
God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Greg. Total agreement with ya. There is a really good book out called, "The Creationists" and they argue for an old earth. Young earth theorists don't have much historical backing. They are more of a recent development. Thanks again. You cleared up some confusion on my part. I have heard other theologians talk about evolution "being a possibility" but they never really went further than that.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
whasssuuuppp
03/05/01 3:00 PM
RE: RE: RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Tom, (I know you addressed your ? to doc but I'm going to take a try at it )
First off, I just gotta say that I love the questions you ask because you articulate some of the same things that I've got floating around my mind. That said, I'm going to try to give an answer that, for me, provides a "satisfying" answer on one level, but which still leaves some question unanswered.
You say:
"So, it would seem to me that if we argue “God could not have immediately required the just consequences of Satan’s rebellion” on the basis of the irrevocability of free will, then we are bound to maintain this eternally, and God then would never allowed to toss the creep in the fire. After all, it’s free will. Again, how does “truly giving free will” exempt the agent from the just consequences of disobedience at ANY time?"
Me says: One issue not well-articulated in God at War (but which will be discussed, in sounds like, in Satan and the Problem of Evil) is the idea that free will (i.e., power to influence) is FINITE. We exist for a matter of time, making decisions, going down paths, making more decisions, and so on, but at some point our free will "runs out," so to say. For some people this happens when they die, but for others I really think it happens long before they are 6 feet under (and for others, such as those who die before their characters are solidified, possibly in some other kind of place. Who knows?). We know this intuitively--as we get older the paths open to us narrow considerably. With each MAJOR decision we make, think of how many other doors are closed in the process.
Some philosopher (Aristotle? Someone help me out here) said this: "choices become habit, habit becomes character, and character becomes being." There is a point at which we don't choose our character any longer, it instead "chooses" us. This is why I think hell is, as C.S. Lewis said, locked from the inside. People in hell are solidified in a character AGAINST God, unable to any longer choose to love God.
So, this helps with the free will/power to influence question on some level, especially as it relates to people. People are given different levels of "power to influence" and so it takes longer for some people to "run out." So what about Satan? First, we need to remember that Satan was created with incredible power to influence, more than we can really even fathom because it can't relate to any level of human power. Second, we don't really know the parameters God set up with Satan in regards to his domain of influence, though we are given some hints--Satan is called the "ruler and power of the air," a "roaring lion," and one to whom "all the kingdoms of the world" have been given, the former prince of light. When Satan fell, everything under his domain suffered and continues to suffer.
And yet it seems that surely Satan's power would have run out BY NOW! On some estimations this guy has been around for billions of years. Isn't that enough? And, a harder question: isn't Satan's character, or all people's, SOLIDIFIED? The Bible seems pretty clear that it is. The only possible answer I have come up with is to think that perhaps "power to influence" and "character solidification" don't end congruously. It's like this--Satan's character was solidified long ago, but his power to influence, given by God, hasn't yet "run out." I'm not sure this works. Let me know what you think.
So God is NOT bound to eternally "put up" with Satan, or any person, for that matter. Our power to influence is finite, and the clock is ticking.
peace, ms. wassup
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
03/05/01 3:14 PM
RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom,
Holes galore. Water's flooding the hull. All hands on deck. Prepare the lifeboats. Abandon ship...
Meph.
PS:
To Whasssuuppp,
I certainly hope that this "hourglass" view of diminishing capacity for "free will" is not what Doc truly intends to argue. If so...sheesh...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
03/05/01 5:55 PM
RE: RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually Meph, it is precisely what I intend to argue... sheesh.
I think Whasssupp nailed it quite well. It WAS ARistotle, and then Augustine, and then Aquinas (and many others) who observed that choices become habit, habit becomes character and character becomes BEING. We become the decisions that we make. We get solidified. Freedom -- the power to have morally responsible "say so" in what traspires -- is finite. We are, after all, finite creatures.
I think Whasssup also addressed Tom's questions well regarding consequences of behavior. There WERE immediate consequences for Satan's rebellion, as there were for all the angels and all human rebells. But the issue is, do they nevertheless yet have "say-so" in what transpires. My claim is that if God genuinely gave genuinely free will to creatures, one of the immediate consequences for their misusing it can't be its total elimination. Yes there are consequences, now and later. But one of the "now" consequences can't be revoking the "say-so." In this case he never really gave it.
The only alternative to this, so far as I can is, is to hold that God allowed Satan to continue to use his will to afflict others because IT WAS BETTER this way (since God always does the good and wise thing). But I, for one, (and Waslawa for another) can't accept that the cosmos as a whole, through all of world history, is better off for all the evil that has been administered.
It's NOT better. Its far worse. But its better to have a world where this sort of evil is POSSIBLE than a world in which it is not. With C.S. Lewis, I'd argue that a world without freedom (viz. the possibility of evil) is hardly worth creating, for it would also be a world without love.
This may not be a perfect "ship" Mephi, but I think its the best ship afloat. If you've got a cruiser I don't know about, take me for a ride. (But as I understand you, it seems you've given up on the possibility of ships -- at least on the sea of the problem of evil. (:
later
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
03/05/01 6:47 PM
Semi-sheeshy response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc, you were sounding so Lutheran! Well, you definitely have tradition on your side, so I will only offer a semi-sheeshy response. (I just bought a dictionary of latin theological terms--yes, I'm a geek--and I'm going to try it out tonight. Here goes.) How do you distinguish between habitus acquisitus (character traits that are deepened via a person's regular practice of them--btw, Flannery O'Connor, catholic fiction writer, titled her autobiography, "Habit of Being") and habitus infusus (character traits that are infused in a person via God's grace apart from their works)? GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
MrIndifference
03/05/01 8:36 PM
Redemption for all of creation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My understatanding of the gap theory is that after the fall of Satan, God faught him and basically removed his power. God did not judge Satan at that point, not so much that he couldn't, but because He had a better plan. SALVATION of all creation... Man was created perfect. He was created to be the guardian over Satan and his cohorts. Though man was create perfect, he was created after the fact. I believe that though Satan was at bay at that point, creation as a whole had not been restored to it's origional splendor. There was still some sort of division between God and creation. Look at Revelation 5:8-10
8Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
9And they sang a new song, saying:
“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10 And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth.”
Looking at this passage you should notice that it was not man alone that was redemed by Christs crucifixion, but I believe all of creation. I am probably missing something here, but I hope you get the general idea.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
03/06/01 3:30 AM
RE: Semi-sheeshy response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“How do you distinguish between habitus acquisitus (character traits that are deepened via a person's regular practice of them…and habitus infusus (character traits that are infused in a person via God's grace apart from their works)?”
GDG-
I’d be very interested in pursuing this. In two days I begin teaching a course entitled “Spiritual Disciplines” (we’re using Dallas Willard’s Spirit of the Disciplines as a text). Great book!
Anyhow, Willard’s whole thesis is that God does not “infuse” new character apart from our involving ourselves via certain habits (the disciplines) in the process. The disciplines are the meeting point, where God’s grace is made available and our characters are transformed.
I’m not familiar with the classical definition of habitus infusus , but I would tend to disagree that God transforms our characters apart from the habitual practice of the disciplines. I don’t think this makes character transformation something we merit by works, anymore than salvation is something we merit by having to believe.
If I’m in another world let me know!
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ghost-dog-girl
03/06/01 8:12 AM
RE: RE: Semi-sheeshy response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom, your post would make my Lutheran professors freak. Personally, I find the distinction between habitus acquisitus and habitus infusus very important but very confusing. Hopefully doc can shed some light on this for us. In the mean time, I started a new thread on it called "Sanctification." Blessings, GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
mn777saint
03/06/01 9:33 AM
RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As a Man Thinkith in his heart so is he"
God Bless
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
WWPS
04/03/01 7:31 PM
RE: God at War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
whasssuuuuppp said,
Some philosopher (Aristotle? Someone help me out here) said this: "choices become habit, habit becomes character, and character becomes being."
Actually, it was James in his book, where he said in James 1:15, "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."
WWPS
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:44 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 |
|
|