 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 6:25 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message
TGB
02/06/01 9:05 AM
God of the Possible: Greg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg-
I want to thank you for God of the Possible. I’m just finishing it up now. Two comments:
First, there wasn’t a single thought I disagreed with in chapter two. As I read through it I said to myself repeatedly, “I’ve always believed this instinctively. It makes perfect sense. What’s the big deal?” I agree wholeheartedly that the motif of future openness describes God as he really is. There. I said it. Does that make me a convert? Do I get a discount on your two forthcoming books? (No harm in trying, guys.)
Chapter one, though, left me with unanswered questions. I am left still wondering what the outcome is for prophesied acts of free will. I thought your treatment of the cases of Josiah and Cyrus (page 34) was too quick and didn’t really deal with the deeper issue of freedom. You could have said a little more about what the upshot of such prophecies is for free will. What I gathered from your comments is that it demolishes it! That is, Josiah’s and Cyrus’ parents were simply not free with respect to the naming of their sons. Neither was Cyrus free with respect to the choosing of a career or his choice to release captive Jews. You stated it somewhat ambiguously in saying God’s decree with regard to these events “obviously set strict parameters around the freedom of the parents in naming these individuals….” Strict parameters around their freedom? More than “strict parameters” I’d say. They simply were not free to name them anything other than Josiah and Cyrus respectively. What genuine freedom remained? None that I can see. It would seem less ambiguous and more honest perhaps (?) to admit that determined events of this sort are simply not free.
But isn’t this the one big beef you have with Calvinism? I’m stumped. And it only gets more complicated when we consider determined acts of evil. Are we going to say that those who commit previously determined acts of evil are, like Josiah’s parents, restricted with regard to the “parameters” which surround their freedom of choice (i.e. they are free either to run somebody through with the sword or hang ‘em from a tree, but they have to kill a certain somebody)? If you ever get around to editing and reprinting God of the Possible, give this question more attention, for my sake!
Earlier you suggested the example of insurance agencies who accurately predict a percentage of auto accidents. But isn’t this significantly UNLIKE the biblical examples of determined acts? For example, insurance agencies may accurately predict a 13% accident rate among teen-agers without being responsible for the accidents. Fine. But 1) aren’t such predictions merely projections based on past performance (unlike the naming of Josiah and Cyrus)? and 2) no insurance agency would dare attempt to predict that 25 years from now a certain Joe Bescapalous, not yet even born, will have an accident in his blue Chevie at the corner of Main and 42nd street. THIS is more like what we’re dealing with in the examples of Josiah and Cyrus, who at least represent non-moral determined events, to say nothing of Judas, who represents the fulfilling of a prophesied event for which HE is responsible. If you admit that Cyrus’ parents were less than free in the naming of their son (in order to maintain the integrity of the prophecy), how can Judas be held totally responsible? For example, regarding Judas (page 38):
”…We have every reason to suppose that earlier on Judas could have (and should have) chosen a different path for his life, but as a free moral agent, Judas tragically chose a path of self-interest and ultimately self-destruction. If he had made himself into a different kind of person, he would not have been a candidate for fulfilling the prophecy of the Lord’s betrayal. In this case, the Lord simply would have found somebody else to fill this role.”
Is this an admission that God was obliged to dump the responsibility for betraying Jesus on somebody’s shoulders?
So, in the main I can’t escape your chapter two. I’m with you 100%. In fact, reading it was more like discovering what I intuitively knew all along was true than it was being convinced to adopt a brand new view of God. The difficulty I still have to work through is the “freedom-ness” (if you will) of determined acts, especially acts of sin.
I want also to congratulate you on maintaining a lay person’s language and point of view throughout the book. Good writing!
How ‘bout that discount?
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Lion-Lamb
02/06/01 11:00 AM
RE: God of the Possible: A Question for Greg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg,
Since Tom has started this thread, it seems my question should be posted in this thread. I have a question concerning a paragraph in God of the Possible, pages 61-62. Below is the quote I would like to have you explain further.
In the classical view, God’s expectations can never be different from what transpires. . . . Several other passages in Jeremiah confirm this. Three times the Lord expresses shock over Israel’s ungodly behavior by saying that they are doing things “which I did not command or decree, nor did it enter my mind” (Jer. 19:5; see also 7:31; 32:35). However we understand the phrase “nor did it enter my mind,” it would at the very least seem to preclude the possibility that the Israelites’ idolatrous behavior was eternally certain in God’s mind. If the classical view is correct, we have to be willing to accept that God could in one breath say that the Israelites’ behavior “did not enter my mind,” though their behavior “was eternally in my mind.” If this is not a contradiction, what is?
Here’s my question. You clearly use the passages from Jeremiah 7, 19, & 32 to support your belief that God does not know the future free decisions of his rational and sentient creatures. However, you don’t explain what the clause—“nor did it enter my mind”—actually means. It seems you assume that the reader knows what you think it means. For you say However we understand the phrase “nor did it enter my mind,” it would at the very least seem to preclude the possibility that the Israelites’ idolatrous behavior was eternally certain in God’s mind. Would you explain how you understand the clause? For it seems to me that it is essential that we have a clear understanding what the clause actually means, if we are to accept your conclusion to be true concerning the clause. So, I’m simply asking for you to offer a clear explanation of the clause nor did it enter my mind. I’m especially wanting you to show how your understanding of the clause leads to your conclusion that it would at the very least seem to preclude the possibility that the Israelites’ idolatrous behavior was eternally certain in God’s mind. Perhaps I missed something in the paragraph that should make it obvious to me that your conclusion about the clause is correct. If so, I need help to trace your logic from the clause's meaning to your conclusion.
Thank you!
Lion-Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
02/06/01 1:56 PM
Mephi's Clumsy Attempt At Humor...with a Point to It
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Notice: The following is tongue-in-cheek, but sincere)
The Beautiful, Yet Quirky Ship
There were some shipbuilders who were extremely disenfranchised with the then current quality of ships being built. In looking at other ships, they noticed many things to their disliking. This one wasn't expansive enough. That one wasn't awe-inspiring enough. This other one was simply a burden to its passengers. Thus, in looking at all the inadequacies of the other ships, the ship builders began to coalesce ideas for building a MAGNIFICENT ship. They envisioned a ship that could avoid all of the nasty cumbersome pitfalls they had seen in other ships. They did all their work on high tech computer graphics to show the outlay of the boat. Even in this formative stages, the ship was truly lovely to behold. It almost seemed naturally appealing to the human eye. The aesthetics were astounding and the view was marvelous. For many, just looking at the ship made you want to sail! The computer graphic overlays were displayed in public domain to give people a feel for the vision of the shipbuilders. Popularity seemed to skyrocket OVERNIGHT. Most people seemed to fall in love with the ship as soon as they saw it. It just seemed to "vibe", as it were!
One day, an admirer came and wanted more information about the ship. The guy had some pretty good ideas about the ship from the outside (It had been talked about in some magazines he had been reading), but he wanted to look at the infrastructure a bit. Very astute fellow, he was. Through no big struggle, he was able to go to the actual place where the ship was being designed. He also got to look at some schematics of the ship itself, even beyond the graphical overlays. Looking at the schematics, he saw some very impressive material. Indeed, this ship seemed to be almost EXACTLY what he thought a ship SHOULD be! It was quite uncanny the resemblance between this schematic and his ideal view of ships!
But he shortly noticed something that he wanted to bring to the shipbuilders' collective attention. "Excuse me, good people," he exclaimed "I was just looking over your schematics and I noticed something interesting. Something that wasn't necessarily clearly seen in the overlays that have been publicized. Maybe you could help me with this." At this, the shipbuilders gathered around him. "Sure, we'd love to help," they say. Seeing that he had their full attention, he begins. "It seems that your design, marvelous though it is, has elaborate holes specifically designed in to the bottom of the ship. I was wondering. Won't that pose some sort of problem in the future?" One of the shipbuilders says "Problem? What problem?" Another one of the shipbuilders looks at him and says "Well, you see. In order for us to have JUST the right aesthetic and structural atmosphere for the entire ship, we found that we had to have these ornamented holes at the bottom of the ship. It gives just the right touch to the overall look and feel of the boat."
Looking back at the schematic, the admirer says "Oh, I see, I see. And the holes do make it look quite wonderful and unique. But, my concern is this. Won't the holes eventually prevent the ship from floating on the water? I know that the ship looks VERY good and is completely pleasing to the eye and the heart. But, won't the holes eventually cause the ship to sink, defeating the main purpose of the ship itself? I mean, that IS the whole purpose of this boat, right? To sail better and farther than any of the other boats?" "Hmmm," said the shipbuilders thoughtfully. "Well, certain things are necessary for the ship to truly encompass what we envision for it. I guarantee the thing you are noting is fairly inconsequential. Just look at all the other amenties the ship has. Imagine the ride!" Looking a tad baffled, the admirer says, "Oh, yes, the ride would be wonderful, but for how long? It seems to me that the holes that are designed into the ship itself could end up being the ship's undoing. Maybe this is something that you could do further thinking on in the future. It may not be that consequential, but just think about it..."
"But having said all that," he continues, "let me say this. I am geniunely fond of the ship. It completely fills everything that I could have expected in a ship. Wow, what a piece of work! I tell you what. As soon as it's ready, just give a yell because I'm considering being on the maiden voyage!" The shipbuilders and the admirer exchange smiles before the perceptive admirer takes one last look at the schematics of the beautiful, yet quirky ship.
Let the readers of this story understand its meaning.
Peace out,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
02/06/01 3:17 PM
RE: Mephi's Clumsy Attempt At Humor...with a Point to It
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cute.
Say Meph, have you heard the one about the shipbuilder who designs most of his ships to sink in order to make the ones he designs to float seem even cooler? When the shipbuilder sinks one he blames it on the captain, but when he designs one to float the shipbuilder takes all the credit. And all his ships have rutters that the captains can turn back and forth, but the ships are really remote controlled by the ship builder. He puts radios on all his ships so that the captains can radio him, but the shipbuilder preprograms the routes, so it doesn't really matter what the captains say. The captains are all in on this, and they're ok with it. They just flip the rutter back and forth and radio back to the ship builder as if it really mattered.... And they wonder why anyone would possibly want to take their chances on a ship with quirky holes in the bottom rather than captain a ship by their glorious ship builder.... Backatcha, GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
02/06/01 3:34 PM
RE: Mephi's Clumsy Attempt At Humor...with a Point to It
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yo Meph!
Very funny. Let me try my hand at an interpretation.
The ship is: Open Theism.
The shipbuilders are: Boyd, Sanders, Pinnock, Rice, et. al.
The ocean is: Life.
The smart but stupid admirer is: Yours truly!
Well, I guess when one is writing fiction one can make the story turn out however one likes.
Since we’re making up stories, how’s this one?
Long ago there was a large group of people who wanted to cross a treacherous waterway. Some chose to swim. That seemed simplest. Others chose to float across on pieces of driftwood. Still others made large rafts or sailboats. Off they all went. On the way a large Hovercraft came alongside them. The Hovercraft stopped and those aboard offered a ride to those who were swimming, floating, or sailing. Some got on. Others preferred to swim. Those floating on rafts and others being blown along by the wind decided the Hovercraft was too risky. “A ‘hovercraft’! What’s that?” they asked. “Doesn’t look normal,” they thought to themselves. “No thanks, we’ll stick with what we’ve got,” was their reply. Some of the sailors even wrote stories about how stupid those on the Hovercraft were in order to make themselves feel better for having refused to admit that others had managed to find a quicker, safer, and better way across.
Exegete that.
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
TGB
02/06/01 3:38 PM
RE: RE: Mephi's Clumsy Attempt At Humor...with a Point to It
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDG-
Touché
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Mephi2K
02/06/01 3:53 PM
Now THIS is fun!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ooh, ooh! I think I can do this one! Lessee here...
Attempt At Interpretation:
Waterway to cross = Christian theistic existence (this would includes worshipping and loving God)
Methods of crossing the waterway = Various theological perspectives
Hovercraft = Open View Theism (The capital "H" made me think God at first, but...naaaah...)
The people who criticize the Hovercraft = Classicalists and the like (I guess that would be me, huh? LOL)
Mephi's Guess at a Moral:
Moral of the Story = Pragmatism rules, not truth or coherency. The pragmatic utility of the theology is worth more than the structural integrity of the theology itself. As a matter of fact, the pragmatic utility of the theology is EQUIVALENT to the integrity of the theology! Whatever gets you across the waterway with the most ease and the least tension is what works. Better to risk our theology for a more pragmatically workable one than to make sure that utility hasn't been garnered at the expense of truth. One shouldn't knock what allows so many people to truly live with and enjoy their Christian faith.
Hmmm, was I right? If so, that was sheer brilliance! Thank you so much for that. If I wasn't right, how about you break it down for me.
In Christ,
Mephi2K
PS: I hope you're not upset about the tongue-in-cheek thing. It was satirical. I still pray for you and your ministry, ya know...LOL
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Shine150
02/06/01 9:03 PM
RE: Now THIS is fun!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephistoph chumperinski,
down with your satire dude! (for old folks, that's a compliment). course, doesn't reflect ANYTHING anyone has said from a open perspective on ANY threads (least that i've read)... but nice story, my friend.
but bro, if Cyrus and Josiah are "holes" in the openness boat, the hundreds of passages that depict God facing an open future are "giant crators" in the boat of classical theism. plus, these "holes" on the openness love boart are pretty easy to "patch up" -- IF one has to insist they're holes in the first place.
comes down to this compadre:
* we openness floaters have to qualify the general freedom the Creator gives us to account for TWO acts of TWO individuals. they were in one respect determined. (there are other individuals destined, like Judas, but not before birth).
* by contrast, you have to say that the 39 explicit passages that say God changed his mind don't really mean he changed his mind.
the dozens of passages that say God tested people "to know" their hearts don't mean God really had to test people "to know" their heart.
the dozens of passages that depict God as surprised or disappointed don't really mean that God was ever surprised or disappointed.
the dozens and dozens of passages in which God speaks or thinks of the future in terms of a "Perhaps" dont' really mean that God faces the future as a "perhaps". (you've read God of Possible, its there).
in terms of what boat is going to sink...
i'll ride the openness ship.
least till i stop
shining at 150.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
02/07/01 1:05 PM
Now THIS is fun!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love it! Nice response from the Great GDG. Good one from Tom too. Lets see.
Of Meph’s criticism of Tom, he said:
Moral of the Story = Pragmatism rules, not truth or coherency. The pragmatic utility of the theology is worth more than the structural integrity of the theology itself.
Isn’t this the pot calling the kettle black. Goes both ways in that case Meph. Actually, only one way. Seems to me, people find *more* comfort in an all controlling, determining God, “knowing” (interpreted believing) that nothing happens to them without passing through his hand first. That there are things that happen for an ultimate reason. That they are ultimately destined. I don’t find *as much* comfort in my view Meph.
Hey, the next time someone is brutally cut into pieces and body parts are then traded and put on another dead person’s body? I will be at peace knowing that God is ultimately behind it all. For he set up the “parameters” see.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
02/07/01 3:32 PM
RE: Now THIS is fun!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Mephi, does the fact that the open view allows some of us to "truly live with" our Christian faith count as a strength or a weakness in your opinion? Doesn't pragmatic utility presume structural utility? I.e., if Tom's Hovercraft had holes in it (structual integrity), it wouldn't have worked (pragmatic utility). But the converse does not seem true--structural integrity does not necessarily yield pragmatic utility. Do we have to exhaustively understand and explain something in order to justify making use of it? And speaking of structural integrity, I'd say the open view ain't too shabby considering the classical view has about 1500 years of tweaking on us. GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
02/07/01 5:54 PM
Hmmmmm...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon,
Hey, no fair. You gave no parable or story! LOL Anyways...
You said this:
"Isn’t this the pot calling the kettle black. Goes both ways in that case Meph. Actually, only one way.
Mephi:
Ok. Just want to analyze some things here. This idiomatic phrase that I underlined above is generally reserved for statements of hypocrisy. In other words, what I recieved from what you said was the following:
"Hey, Meph. Some classicalists go to their all controlling, all-determining God for strictly pragmatic reasons just like some open view people do. So there!"
Two points. First of all, I want you to notice my statement about pragmatism. It would hold for ANY person of ANY belief who holds ANY paradigm for the sake of utility rather than the sake of coherency and truth. This would include some classicalists. Did I make a statement singling out open view theists only? Not at all. (I'm one right now. Didn't you know? ) That's VERY important to keep in mind. Second, you seem to be lumping me with those classicalists. It's the only way that your "black kettle" statement makes any sense to me. Note the line of reasoning that I see you may have taken:
1) Mephi is arguing against people taking a strictly pragmatic approach to choosing theology.
Implicit assumption: Because Mephi is talking to a person who is sympathetic to openness theology, he MUST be alluding that ONLY openness theologians are prone to this problem. (Ooh. BAD assumption)
2) Some classicalists do the very thing that Mephi is talking about.
3) Mephi is a classicalist.
4) Therefore, Mephi is making a hypocritical statement.
Now notice the fatal flaws here....
1) Some classicalists may do this, but NOT ALL. For your logic above to work, you would have to posit the premise that ALL classicalists take a strictly pragmatic approach to choosing theology, and that's clearly not the case.
2) Guess what? MEPHI IS NOT A CLASSICALIST. Besides that, I don't agree with taking a strictly pragmatic approach to choosing theology. So, this is a double monster.
As you can see, your logic was WAY screwed, thus you made a very unsubstantiated claim. So as far as what I said "going both ways", check your map, bud. Mad love, anyways.
Still Being Free,
Mephi2K, the New Open View Theist
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
02/07/01 6:22 PM
RE: RE: Now THIS is fun!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we go...
So Mephi, does the fact that the open view allows some of us to "truly live with" our Christian faith count as a strength or a weakness in your opinion?
Mephi:
I believe that holding on to ANY belief merely for the sake of the existential "cookies" that you get from it, NEGATING critical reflection of said believe, is wrong. Notice I said "BELIEF". That means this applies to theology, philosophy, whatever. I am not a existentialist in that I do NOT believe that existence precedes essence. I'm not Albert Camus or Jean-Paul Sartre. I believe that, as rational beings, we should seek out TRUTH and hold on to that truth, whatever it may be. Having said this, we should truthfully understand the theologizing process. I think that much of it IS a human process (Tillich noted that) BUT, for us to merely sacrifice some salient tenets and truths of a belief JUST to existentially appealing is wrong. I am NOT a full scale pragmatist. Truth is NOT just what works. Truth has an essence all its own that must be followed. If not, then perhaps theologizing is nothing more that human beings creating their OWN gods. Heh...
****************************************
Doesn't pragmatic utility presume structural utility?
Mephi:
If you mean internal consistency and stuff like that, HECK, NO! Popular pragmatism works by the main premise of what works is true. The UNDERLYING premise is this: If it wasn't true, then it wouldn't work. But surely you can see that this was ONLY really applied to more empirical approaches and methodology. When the pragmatic idea is used upon BELIEFS, now we've got almost a different ball game. Existentialism and pragmatism as it deals with belief go hand in hand. MOREOVER, this goes well with a UTILITARIAN ethic. Don't get lost. I'll give an example:
Let's say that I have an experience and I say that I believe in the existence of the Goddess of Fatulence, LaQuanita. LaQuanita is a good goddess and she tells me (ONLY me) good things. I am her prophet. I genuinely believe in here, though their is absolutely NO evidence for her. (No holy writs, no corroboration whatsoever) Because of my new belief and trust in LaQuanita, all types of positive changes come in my life. I stop smoking weed, I don't cheat on my wife, etc. etc. Moreover, my enduring trust in LaQuanita's love for me gives me the strength that I need to go on in life and be a good person and citizen. People who have a bent towards the pragmatic, existentialist, utilitarian way of life could say the following:
"We believe this person to be a certifiable LOON. There is no evidence that what he believes is real. However, according to his testimony and the testimony of the people closest to him, this belief is making him a better person and a better citizen. Also, there is a good chance that if we take steps that remove his belief, his life will seriously suffer for it. Therefore, we believe that it is probably for the BEST for all concerned that this guy believe in LaQuanita, the Goddess of Flatulence."
Hopefully, you see the point I'm making. Pragmatic utility with respect to BELIEF does not necessitate structural utility (meaning coherency and truth appeal)
***************************************
Do we have to exhaustively understand and explain something in order to justify making use of it?
Mephi:
If that was the case, there would be NO Christians...OR Muslims...OR Buddhists...LOL. But I will say this. There SHOULD be some critical thinking going on about our beliefs. To hold them dogmatically, WITHOUT any critical thinking, is...well...quite silly, in my opinion.
Mad Love,
Mephi2K aka The New Open Theist
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
02/08/01 1:42 PM
Now THIS is fun!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph man said:
“Brandon,
Hey, no fair. You gave no parable or story! LOL Anyways...
You’re a hoot. Love ya my friend.
Meph: This idiomatic phrase that I underlined above is generally reserved for statements of hypocrisy.
I guess with all the connotations that go along with the word hypocrisy, I think that is too strong of a term. Contradiction, maybe. Not hypocrisy. Of course, you were speaking generally.
“In other words, what I recieved from what you said was the following:
"Hey, Meph. Some classicalists go to their all controlling, all-determining God for strictly pragmatic reasons just like some open view people do. So there!"
No. I really didn’t say that either. Some may go for pragmatic reasons, but even this is not what they are *strictly* driven by. They truly believe that this is what scripture teaches and they just find comfort in that, that’s all. They don’t say, “I need comfort, I need solace in my time of pain. I will go to my all controlling, all determining God.” More people run from that kind of God then those who run to him (which is beside the point). They believe that God is this way and that is comforting to know. It isn’t so black and white. The human psyche is such that there can be any number of mixed emotions or reasons for why people do what they do. Nor did I say that some open view people on the basis of their view are driven by pragmatism. I hardly see how our view is very comforting. It’s a scary world out there dude. I’m in a war. There’ll be some casualties. The enemy is on my tail. Very riskaaaay if you ask me.
Meph:“Two points. First of all, I want you to notice my statement about pragmatism. It would hold for ANY person of ANY belief who holds ANY paradigm for the sake of utility rather than the sake of coherency and truth. This would include some classicalists. Did I make a statement singling out open view theists only? Not at all."
I can see how your argument follows through. Problem is, I don’t think it really applies to what I am saying. What I am saying is:
1. Some classicalists turn to an all determining, all controlling God for any number of reasons. Strictly pragmatic? I do not think so.
2. Some do not turn to an all determining, all controlling God for but for theological reasons (at least that is what they think).
3. Open view theism is hardly comforting, so we don’t go for pragmatic reasons.
4. Therefore, those who go to God for any number of reasons (Calvinists, classicalists, etc, etc, etc) outweigh those who are Open Theist’s. Hence, the comfort level is on you guys, not us.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
02/08/01 3:03 PM
RE: Now THIS is fun!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear philosophers and fiction writers-
I’m having a real hard time knowing where the line is between Meph’s “philosophy” and his “fiction writing”! Is there a line?
The relationship between “Truth” and “Utility”? I’ll let you heavyweights wrestle over that. But I would like to offer just one or two unsophisticated words. Tell me, does anyone believe truth to be “useless,” that is, void of utility? I should think not. Truth, I would think, is supremely useful and practical. So the fact that the open view “works” shouldn’t automatically be taken to mean it’s structurally wanting. Seemed to me that’s what you were up to, Meph.
Utility is a pretty slippery deal too. I mean, whether a particular view possesses genuine utility depends entirely upon the desired end doesn’t it? Even concentration camp ovens possess great utility…for Nazis that is. So, shouldn’t we define the biblical purpose of our existence before deciding whether a hovercraft is or isn’t better than a surfboard for managing treacherous waters? And don’t we pretty much agree already on what the end goal of our existence is? We were created to know and glorify God through loving relationship (and to bring others into loving relationship with him). That pretty much sums it up for me. And if OV converts admit to having discovered greater intimacy with God, a greater love and appreciation for him, and a greater urgency in prayer and evangelism, I would think even a Calvinist could manage to muster up a “Praise God!” I know I genuinely rejoice with you, LL, and others on the Reformed end of things for feeling like life’s purpose is best achieved through adopting and living under the direction of a view other than the OV. Can you Reformed brothers and sisters do the same?
Perhaps my hovercraft story only glorified utility at the expense of truth because you found utility in interpreting it that way. I guess it was fun for a post or two, but I don’t think there’s much…eh…utility (no pun intended) to be had in making up parables about each other’s views!
How do I insert funny faces into the text of a post? I wanna put one right…here!
Blessings all,
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Mephi2K
02/08/01 3:56 PM
To My Buddy, Tom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Tom,
You say:
"We were created to know and glorify God through loving relationship (and to bring others into loving relationship with him). That pretty much sums it up for me. And if OV converts admit to having discovered greater intimacy with God, a greater love and appreciation for him, and a greater urgency in prayer and evangelism, I would think even a Calvinist could manage to muster up a “Praise God!” I know I genuinely rejoice with you, LL, and others on the Reformed end of things for feeling like life’s purpose is best achieved through adopting and living under the direction of a view other than the OV. Can you Reformed brothers and sisters do the same?"
Mephi:
I need some clarification, Tom. I want to make sure I get this straight. Is this what you are saying:
"We should pick WHATEVER theological view helps us to do the following:
1) Know God through loving relationship more intimately
2) Pray and evangelize earnestly
3) Glorify God in the two things above
We are to pick any theological view that satisfies our personal moral, existential, and perhaps even LOGICAL needs so that we can fully facilitate the above. Because the above is the MAIN thing."
Tom, this is what I'm getting from what you are saying. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry. But if I'm right, then there's only one problem. Either open view theism is true or it isn't. Either libertarian free will exists or it doesn't. If I am to accept what you are saying, those things ULTIMATELY don't matter. Surely, you see that this is a very pragmatic and utilitarian view of religion. But why LIMIT it to Christianity only? If I were an Islamic person, do you know the FIRST question I would ask you?
"Given the three things above that you say about the primary ordinance of human beings, why in the world should I have to accept the notion of a Trinity or Jesus as God's Son? I can advance the cause of Allah just fine in MY worldview."
What would you to say to me? Would you tell me this:
"Well, Meph. You have to understand Jesus is MORE than just a prophet. He is our mediator for relationship with God. What I believe about Christ is TRUE, while your belief is FALSE, or at best INCOMPLETE."
I certainly hope not. Because I would tell you that doesn't matter. I pray, glorify God, and know God as intimately as I can through my understanding of the Holy Q'uran. Therefore, I meet your criteria of pragmatic effect. So leave me alone. Do you see what I'm saying?
Bottom line: Where does the TRUTH of the matter come in? On what basis would you tell me that I should ditch my LaQuanita, Goddess of Flatulence for a dead Meditterranean peasant who lived under Second Temple Judaism over 2000 years ago? I'm living a healthy life and making my society and world a better place. What do I need with your Jesus? There is only ONE God(dess) and her name is LaQuanita! I pray to her and worship her by serving my fellow man. Moreover, I have a very intimate relationship with here. I follow ALL the three tenets you mention. So why do I need Jesus? I trust by now you get my point. Truth is NECESSARY to the conversation. For those people who are just dogmatic in their beliefs, there is nothing I can do but leave those people to God. They've made their decisions and nothing is harder to change than the mind. I will love them as God's creatures REGARDLESS. Like I've said before, I genuinely believe that there are many Christians with SCREWED UP theologies (me, included) that are going to end up before the Master in Heaven. However, IF there are people who DO want to search for truth no matter where it leads them, then I like to DIALOGUE with them and present my views openly for criticism and ask them to do the same. Why? Because we are on a search for truth. Surely, you see how an overly pragmatic view toward religious faith LEADS to religious pluralism when taken consistently.
Sorry, man. I can't jump on that ship. Truth exists. And truth is better than fiction. (Man, I love axiology!)
Holla,
Mephi2K
PS: Talking with lots of religion bashers gives one some GREAT ideas.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
02/09/01 3:18 AM
To My Buddy, Mephi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Mephi-
Waz up? I think we could solve this over a grande latte at Starbucks. What d’ya sa?
My kids are home today (as am I), so I’m responding to you while watching cartoons. I hope I can keep things straight.
I totally share your concern for truth over the expressed utility of views we know to be erroneous based on Scripture. But before I answer what I think is your basic question, let me ask you to do me a favor and answer the questions I asked in the post you responded to. Those would be: 1) What is the “chief end” of man? 2) Does this end not define what acceptable utility is in a theological view? That is, if the chief end of man is “to know, love, and glorify God” as defined by Scripture, and open theism accomplishes this, then is it’s utility in this respect entirely meaningless? Thus 3), is truth useful? If so, what IS it’s utility?
I never suggested that utility be allowed to “define” truth. Hasha! (That’s Arabic for “God forbid!”) I’m suggesting that 1) Scripture be allowed to define the chief end of man, that 2) the only legitimate utility to speak of is that which fulfills this chief end, and that 3) the entire purpose of theology and doctrine is to articulate this end and maintain ways of achieving it (I don’t use the plural “ways” in a religiously pluralistic sense. I am after all an exclusivist).
If a Muslim says he genuinely knows, loves, and glorifies God, I would challenge his claim on the basis that the Scriptures declare it impossible to know, love, and glorify God via Islam’s tenets. Truth matters, but it matters because of what God wants to accomplish, not because “being theologically accurate” is in itself a virtue. I maintain the right of Scripture (not personal utility independent of Scripture) to define what “knowing, loving, and glorifying” God is, and that in turn defines the legitimate utility of any view.
Would you agree that the only proper utility worth discussing is that which truly serves man’s chief end (Scripturally understood)? Wouldn’t you agree that Calvinsts and Open Theists already pretty much agree on what this end is? If not, maybe this is what we ought to be talking about.
You summarized my comments:
We are to pick any theological view that satisfies our personal moral, existential, and perhaps even LOGICAL needs so that we can fully facilitate the above. Because the above is the MAIN thing.
I wouldn’t word it in terms of “our personal needs” but in terms of Scripture’s declared purposes/end for man. If we agree that the chief end for which God created us is to know, love, and glorify him, then that IS the MAIN thing, is it not? I don’t think all theologies are useful in achieving that end.
I do think there is enough biblical critical mass in both the OV and Calvinism that makes it possible for both open theists and Calvinists to know, love, and glorify God. Personally I think the OV greases the pistons for a slightly smoother journey (to switch from sea to land travel). But I don’t think therefore that open theists and Calvinists should just shake hands and part company just because they’ll both make it to heaven after all. I’m all for the sort of in-house challenging of views that goes on here, not because I’m interested in being theologically right as an end in itself, but because I’m interested in knowing, loving, and glorifying God as deeply and as faithfully as possible. Being theologically truthful serves that purpose, yes, but it’s the purpose I’m after.
Lastly,
Either open view theism is true or it isn't. Either libertarian free will exists or it doesn't. If I am to accept what you are saying, those things ULTIMATELY don't matter.
Which “ultimate end” are you referring to? Heaven/Hell? I’d agree. They don’t matter. I think you and LL are going to heaven and I also think Boyd is going to heaven. I don’t think a person’s view of free will determines their eternal fate. But I do agree that these things do matter a great deal if not ULTIMATELY. But isn’t their mattering at all a veiled reference to “utility”? When you say “truth matters,” aren’t you saying, “truth possess a utility which is essential to mankind; it serves a purpose”? I agree! But just HOW do these issues matter, Meph? What’s ultimately at stake in this discussion? The OV does indeed make a difference (at least is seems so to me it does) in the way we believers live our daily lives. You have Greg’s book and have read chapter three. You know what’s there. But I don’t think that if you’re right about free will that means open theists will toast in hell (or visa versa) for being wrong about free will. Do you? So, the debate about free will matters, yes, but it matters to how brothers in Christ live out their lives within the family of faith. (If you think open theists are heretics and bound for hell, if that’s your ULTIMATE above, then I suppose the complexion of this forum would change considerably. I know it’s not.) So it’s not quite enough to say “truth matters.” How does it matter? And I don’t see that you can answer that question without talking about “utility.”
Cartoons are over and my breakfast is ready! Gotta go.
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
CHF
02/09/01 6:21 PM
RE: God of the Possible: Greg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't participated in the discussion so far, but I have been reading up on it, and since it is is addressing "God of the Possible", I thought I would drop you guys a site which has an EXCELLENT paper addressing Boyd's book. http://www.bgc.bethel.edu/4know/implsbla.htm
Like I said, I haven't participated...guess I still won't, but this paper is very good. It addresses the weakness of Dr. Boyd's arguments
Craig
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:54 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 |
|
|