 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > To Mephi - A question of clarification | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 4:31 PM (GMT -6) |   | Message Go To Page 2 >>
ModesofThought
03/06/01 2:48 PM
to Mephi: a question of clarification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friend, I wonder if somewhere back in the abysmal chasms of my head, a light may have popped on. I'll trust that you will let me know...
I recently went back and read your story. I am embarrassed to admit that it was the first time through it. That along with some of your recent posts got me thinking...
Maybe Mephi is right after all. Don't get out the dunk tank just yet, but let me try some things on here and see what fits:
1. Meph, you object to the STATUS the "free will" idea has in open theism. For you it threatens the gospel as presented in its simplist, most pure form. It threatens it by ADDING our reasoning to it rather than accepting it as it stands. As Paul can put it so briefly, "Christ and him crucified." Period.
2. Open theism, if and when it assumes its own UNDERSTANDING of the Gospel to be THE GOSPEL ITSELF, is guilty of relating relatively to what is Absolute. By "its own UNDERSTANDING" I mean the bit about "free will" being constituent of the Gospel message.
3. My man SK once offered an idea that went something like this: the task of the self is to relate absolutely to the absolute and relatively to the relative. This is not a quote, but close. This is what was to be understood about Abraham as the knight of faith. He related absolutely to God (the absolute) and relatively to Isaac, who while VERY important to Abe and the world for many reasons, was still NOT GOD.
Let's see if SK can help us grasp this further:
Regarding Christianity as the "Absolute" AC (Ante-Climacus, a pseudonymous author of SK's)had this to say (Practice in Christianity, pgs 62-63):
"But then what good is it; is it then indeed a nuisance? Ah, yes, one can also say that; in a relative sense, the absolute is the greatest nuisance. In all the flat, lethargic, dull moments, when the sensate dominates a person, to him Christianity is a madness becuase it is incommensurate with any finite wherefore. But then what good is it? Answer: Be quite, it is the absolute...Christianity came into the world as the absolute, not, humanly speaking, for comfort; on the contrary it continually speaks about how the Christian must suffer or about how a person in order to become and remain a Christian must endure sufferings that he consequently can avoid simply by refraining from becoming a Christian."
4. Beyond your objection to the status which "free will" has as integral to the gospel itself in Openness, you find "free will " to implausible in its own right. This would not be so serious, though, if it were not so integrated into the message of salvation itself, in Openness. I suspect that you use this same safe guard against Calvinists as well. You reject the association of their logic ABOUT the gospel as integral TO the gospel, though you may find the logic more tolerable simply in its own right (relatively speaking, here).
Friends if I am on to anything at all here, it is this: there is a needed distiction between 1st and 2nd order discourse where:
1st order discourse COFESSES the content of our faith, ie. WHAT we believe.
2nd order discourse addresses HOW we think through the implications of our faith, or what sort of logic we use to explain the relations between the various confessions we maintain.
To confuse the two is to mistake the map for the actual terrain it describes. A serious error to be sure.
Mephi, I think that you could agree that we are to relate absolutely to the absolute and relatively to the relative. This would create the needed distinction between "the Gospel as Absolute" and what you have seen in BOTH Openness and Calvinistic thought where the relative conception based upon human logic replaces, ever so subtly, the Gospel itself, as the Absolute. Are you actually calling us to a center we all share (Jesus Christ as the Absolute)? Or have I completely lost my mind?
Anxious to hear from you on this...
Bless you and yours, and thanks for sticking around even when things get crazy...
Modes
PS: before things get out of hand, let me say, that if Mephi agrees that I have a distiction here that he can appreciate, and has been trying to maintain, then THAT is what I agree with him on, not the plausibility of the concept of "free will" RELATIVELY speaking (meaning its function in our second order discourse).
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
03/06/01 3:28 PM
JOY and RAPTURE At the Prospect of Genuine Understading!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dearest Modes,
As always, you've hit the nail right on the head! G-D-G was right. We do have a mind meld of sorts.
************************
1.Meph, you object to the STATUS the "free will" idea has in open theism. For you it threatens the gospel as presented in its simplist, most pure form.
Meph: EXACTLY! It is for this reason that I think many classicalists believe open view theism to be implicitly HERETICAL. Can you see why?
*************************
2. Open theism, if and when it assumes its own UNDERSTANDING of the Gospel to be THE GOSPEL ITSELF, is guilty of relating relatively to what is Absolute.
Meph: EXACTLY!
*************************
3. My man SK once offered an idea that went something like this: the task of the self is to relate absolutely to the absolute and relatively to the relative.
Meph: YES! I would agree with SK. To me, this is the same as keeping the main things, the main things. From this, you can probably see why I am so theocentric in my view...
***************************
4. Beyond your objection to the status which "free will" has as integral to the gospel itself in Openness, you find "free will " to implausible in its own right. This would not be so serious, though, if it were not so integrated into the message of salvation itself, in Openness. I suspect that you use this same safe guard against Calvinists as well. You reject the association of their logic ABOUT the gospel as integral TO the gospel, though you may find the logic more tolerable simply in its own right (relatively speaking, here).
Meph: Modes, you are so on point, I would think you were psychic!
***********************
1st order discourse CONFESSES [sic] the content of our faith, ie. WHAT we believe.
2nd order discourse addresses HOW we think through the implications of our faith, or what sort of logic we use to explain the relations between the various confessions we maintain.
To confuse the two is to mistake the map for the actual terrain it describes. A serious error to be sure.
Meph: PRAISE BE TO GOD!!! Yes, yes, yes! It is keeping THIS fact firmly in mind that I am able to consider most open theists SIBLINGS in the family of God, though I disagree with the view.
*************************
Are you actually calling us to a center we all share (Jesus Christ as the Absolute)?
Meph: Indeed. Surely, you remember how often I've talked about "keeping the main things the main things" It is specifically what you have delineated that I have referred to. Though I believe open theism to be theologically and philosophically flawed on 2nd order discourse, there's no way that I could necessarily disagree with many open view theists concerning the 1st order discourse with respect to the Gospel.
************************************
I SO appreciate your examination and clarification of this matter. In this ENTIRE discussion, far too often this gets completely ignored. Oh, I PRAY that this one thread here is the beginning of some GREAT things in this entire discussion! So very well done, Modes!!
Simply ELATED,
Sir Mephistopheles 2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
03/06/01 3:41 PM
RE: JOY and RAPTURE At the Prospect of Genuine Understading!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WWWHHHAAAAAAHHOOOOOOO!!!!
A happy day indeed...
So now what, world hunger?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
03/06/01 4:37 PM
RE: JOY and RAPTURE At the Prospect of Genuine Understading!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A standard part of my debating Calvinists on the topic of Open Theism has been to make the critical distinction between 1st and 2nd order discourse. This is precisely why i find it crazy that some would like to exclude Open Theists from the ETS or BGC or whatever, when, confessionally, Open Theists SHOULD recognize that the Gospel itself is distinct from our way of "thinking" it. Though, perhaps this is not always recognized, on both sides.
There should be unity in essentials and the essentials should be worded in NONNEGOTIABLE and BIBLICAL (vs. theological) language (this would/should exclude all "theological clubs" from dominating the confession). This is not true of much of what people chose to establish unity upon. Particularly the resolutions which work SO hard to exclude open theists recently. Think of all the work it takes to understand PRECISELY what such resolutions seek to exclude!
Locating the debate in second order discourse reduces what is at stake. Doing so requires a bit of humility from both parties. Can we confess that our view is distinct from THE view, when it comes to things theological? Locating the debate in first order discourse has the effect of building theological walls where there should be only a cross before which we ALL bow.
Perhaps we are much more kindred in spirit than we were able to recognize initially? Wouldn't it be fun to debate each other on this stuff someday publically so the "weight" of the various matters can be more clearly maintained?
BTW: Yes, given the way Open Theists often present themselves when on the defensive, I can see how people could be threatened by the potential confusion of A view with THE view. Humility is the cure, it seems, which justifies the demotion of the debate to second order.
Are we still tracking?
This is becoming fun again. Theology CAN be fun when it is clear that the Gospel is not at stake. The medieval theologians understood this aspect of theology well. It was imaginative, exploratory, interactive, multifaceted...darn it, it was fun! They had the creeds as boundry lines within which to play. What do we have? It often seems like EVERYthing is at stake when ANYthing is at stake.
peace friend.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
churchmouse522
03/06/01 5:01 PM
RE: JOY and RAPTURE At the Prospect of Genuine Understading!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you two sweetiepies! You've made me so happy. I've suspected for quite some time that we are talking past each other about something really important. Bless you both!!!
Feasting on the cheese of lovely fellowship and understanding,
The Mouse
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
03/06/01 5:12 PM
RE: RE: JOY and RAPTURE At the Prospect of Genuine Understading!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheese? I like cheese. Hook me up with some aged swiss, or some sharp cheddar (for sandwiches), oh, oh, how about some brie, yah, yah. What kind of wine do you like with your cheese? I go for the cabs and other full bodied reds...
Its almost like we should have a party of something. Thanks for sharing the joy!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
03/06/01 9:37 PM
MALFUNCTION!: Houston, We Have A Problem...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm...
Modes,
Uh, oh. Looks like I spoke too soon on the understanding thing. My friend, it seems like a LOT of clarification is necessary on some points. Hmmm...
******************************
Part I: Synthesis of What Mephi Is Hearing From Modes
Both sides should note that our conceptions of theological truths are distinct from the truths themselves. This same type of thinking is to be applied all the way through. For the sake of unity within Christianity, the NONNEGOTIABLES are to be crafted in dogmatic, creedal terms. Withing the rubrics of these terms, there should be ample room for theological and philosophical debate as to their EXACT MEANING. Both sides are using BIBLICAL and CREEDAL statements about God, though the two sides may disagree on the exact nature of the statements themselves. The ASSERTION and USE of the terms constitutes 1st order discourse, while the debate on the exact nature of the terms constitute 2nd order discourse. For example, as long as both Calvinists and Open view theists use the terms 'sovereign' and 'omniscient' in reference to God, then everything should be ok. Calvinists and open view theists are USING THE SAME TERMS, giving them the unity on the nonnegotiables...while at the same time the two sides have different MEANINGS for the terms that can be discussed without one side of the other being called 'heretics'
If I'm wrong in my summary, I'm sorry. But I think that I'm pretty on point about my summary, honestly. Oh, boy. I've got some REAL issues here! Let's get started...
***************************
Part II: Where I Was Coming From
The first thing that I have to make clear is that my CHIEF concern was the Gospel and the impact that I felt open view theism had upon the Gospel. If you'll notice, all of my discussion and language was centered around the topic of the Gospel and "free will" Why? Because the gospel is clearly based upon HISTORICAL revelation, specifically the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Not on any delineation of "free will" That's why when you said the following quotes, I about jumped for joy:
"Meph, you object to the STATUS the "free will" idea has in open theism. For you it threatens the gospel as presented in its simplist, most pure form. It threatens it by ADDING our reasoning to it rather than accepting it as it stands. As Paul can put it so briefly, "Christ and him crucified." Period."
and this...
"Beyond your objection to the status which "free will" has as integral to the gospel itself in Openness, you find "free will " to implausible in its own right. This would not be so serious, though, if it were not so integrated into the message of salvation itself, in Openness. (Emphasis Mine)
From what I gathered, you saw and understood my problem! Openness theology virtually makes it such that libertarian free will is NECESSARY for the Gospel to have meaning. But as you already noticed, this clearly defies Pauline soteriology and his idea of the Gospel. So the solution was clear to me (and I thought to you, too) OVTs would have to admit that libertarian free will was NOT as all-important as has been claimed by many open view theists. They would have to say that "free will" is NOT essential to the Gospel, biblically speaking, therefore meaning that compatibilism of any type would NOT render the Gospel false or meaningless. This was why I said that "free will" was irrelevant, remember? See, the problem was evident. If openness theology is such that "free will" is NECESSARILY imported into the Gospel by definition, then this would make openness theology completely DEFUNCT on the most fundamental level. You said...
"For you it threatens the gospel as presented in its simplist, most pure form. It threatens it by ADDING our reasoning to it rather than accepting it as it stands. As Paul can put it so briefly, "Christ and him crucified." Period."
Exactly! But the question was...can openness theology SEPARATE that reasoning concerning libertarian free will from the Gospel...and still be true to itself? As I was going to ask you this because the only way that I saw this could be the case would be for open view theists to fully admit that the Gospel was IN NO WAY predicated by libertarian free will! Concretely, an open view theist would have to say...
"If the Calvinistic God is true (even including double predestination and what have you) then the Gospel STILL has meaning, is NOT a lie, and is STILL Good News"
Honestly, from what I'd heard on this board before, I was really wondering if any open view theist HERE would be willing to make such a statement. But this was the logical conclusion for what we had agreed upon...or so I thought.
***********************************
Part III: On 1st and 2nd Order Discourse
Modes said this:
"1st order discourse CONFESSES [sic] the content of our faith, ie. WHAT we believe.
2nd order discourse addresses HOW we think through the implications of our faith, or what sort of logic we use to explain the relations between the various confessions we maintain."
And I agreed with this as far as I thought it went, but I suppose I have to explain why. We all know that many Christians confess orthodox Christian tenets, but couldn't even begin to tell you WHY those confessions are what they are, how one gets to them logically, and how they interrelate, using the information from Scriptures. It is THIS sad truth that I took into consideration. It is possible for a believer to be a card-carrying creedal person who believes certain tenets for ILLEGITIMATE reasons, rationally speaking. This phenomenon is referred to as "epistemological luck." It occurs when someone comes upon truth, but does so outside of reasonable deliberation, inquiry, and reasoning. I believe, honestly, that this happens a lot in Christianity as a whole. I basically took 1st order discourse to be the theological assertions of Christianity and 2nd order to be the LOGIC by which all the theological assertions are garnered and INTERRELATE with one another. Perhaps I misunderstood you...
What doesn't get understood is that 1st and 2nd order discourse ideally SHOULD go together. They CANNOT truly be separated, in one sense. In other words, assertions made in the 1st order discourse should be able to be REASONABLY EXPLICATED by the 2nd order discourse, because the 2nd order discourse should lead to the assertions in the 1st order. However, it does happen that people can DOGMATICALLY hold to certain 1st order assertions, while their 2nd order discourse argumentation doesn't truly allow for it. See, 1st order assertions don't just pop out of thin air. They are often biblical, theological, and philsophical themes that are taken from the Scriptures and applied to inform Christian belief and practice. So how do we get to the 1st order level? We use the 2nd level stuff.
What does this mean to what you are saying, Modes? I believe that we cannot arbitrarily SEPARATE the 1st and 2nd order discourses in order to use 1st order discourse as broad boundaries on subjects for theological "free reign", as it were.
[Digression: I'm noticing how this is different from CONTEXTUALIZATION of theological positions. The process of contextualization basically deals with the dynamics of form, function, and substance. In other words, the 1st and 2nd order discourses in that realm would not deal with discussing the MESSAGE and it's truth, but discussing the various forms in which this message can take shape and be expressed. What we are discussing is very distinct from that. I mention all this because your argumentation would make all the sense in the world if we were talking about contextualization of biblical truth...or even indigenous theologizing. But we are not. We are talking establishing the foundations of 1st order discourses, the biblical truth itself.]
We cannot just agree on certain terms and leave it at that. Why? Because the terms, themes, and dicta themselves have MEANING that is important to its usage in the first place. To me, this is analogous to saying that we will agree on using the "love" in referring to each other, while at the same time, having TOTALLY DIFFERENT meanings for the word "love" respectively. You see the problem. We have extended the range of meaning of the word beyond any type of univocal understanding, which means the word really doesn't accomplish anything for us but a FACILE appearance of being on the same wavelength. This is far from true unity, as you've already suspected. I think this is ENDEMIC to our postmodern society as a whole, and unfortunately, the Christian church as well,actually. Sad...
********************************
Part IV: My Personal Take on 1st and 2nd Order
You have to understand my take on this. It's pretty pragmatic with respect to one's relationship with God. The distinction that I make between 1st order and 2nd order discourse is a matter of NON-NEGOTIABLES FOR SALVATION that are clearly articulated in the Scriptures. In other words, the 1st order subjects would be the things that, even if DOGMATICALLY held, would still fit the bill. Notice that with this there can be some differential between the dogmatic faith held and the reasoning that led to that faith. You can easily see how the Gospel qua Scriptural teaching would EASILY fit into the 1st order discourse. Not only is it essential to what it means to be a Christian, but it is also CLEARLY articulated in Scripture. There is precious little doubt about the essence of the Gospel, especially between the teachings of Jesus, Paul, and Peter. You can also see how things like the deity of Christ and bodily resurrection would fit in here too. Not surprisingly, these tend to end up being quite creedal, anyway.
I would see the terms "sovereign", and "omniscient" as being primarily 2nd order discourse. Why? Because, if you think about it, understanding these terms are NOT central to accepting the Gospel PER SE. Now make no mistake! In my opinion, these terms ARE important to explaining "how we think through the implications of our faith, or what sort of logic we use to explain the relations between the various confessions we maintain", just as Modes said. In other words, in order to fully understand WHAT MAKES THE GOSPEL POSSIBLE, I believe that these terms are extremely important. In that realm, I believe that open view theism is highly deficient. However, there is obviously some ambiguity to what the terms "sovereign" and "omniscient" can mean. Though there are traditional, historical, and exegetical arguments, it is still pretty up for grabs. They can be discussed. For an example, look at the topic of INSPIRATION and INFALLIBILITY. Look at how many "theories" there are of each. Why is this possible? Because these are NOT necessarily essential to the non-negotiables for salvation.
Now it is here again that I want to bring up the point I made earlier. It appears to me that openness theology makes all of the statements I've quoted above to be 1st order discourses by my description. In other words, if libertarian free will is not true (thereby making God not omnibenevolent, according to OVT standards), then the Gospel would NOT have meaning and even the term "salvation" would really not be meaningful. I think this is a very serious issue, actually.
This, my friend Modes, is why I agreed with you so heavily. I do believe that a distinction needs to be made with respect to 1st and 2nd order discourse. But I DO NOT think that the 2 levels of discourse can be separated for rational discussion, for the sake of unity. Uncritical dogmatism in this regard is something that we should TOLERATE, not ENCOURAGE. Simple saints exist. That's just a fact. But we are not to let this ride throughout all theological circles. In the same way, we don't merely have theological terms and themes in the 1st order discourse such that they are so utterly AMBIGUOUS that they practically have no meaning. You didn't think that I would actually mean THIS when I agreed with you, did you?
******************************
Part V: Summing Up
I felt we were ok until I read your second response. It was THEN that I realized that some MAJOR miscommunication had obviously been made or something like that. I tried to contend that the center that we all share is the historical revelation of God in Jesus Christ with ALL that entailed. This, I feel, is what makes a person distinctively Christian. This is OBJECTIVE rather than subjective. I believe that people on BOTH sides of the debate have missed this, although it affects openness theology significantly more adversely, in my opinion. Moreover, I tried to contend that, because the Gospel's worth is irrespective of the existence or non-existence of "free will", there would have some VERY interesting ramifications for the discussion. In short, it seems that my agreement with you got drawn into something COMPLETELY outside the realm that I had intended. I'm sure this was just miscommunication. But here's the deal. We do agree on some things. Significantly enough for you to understand what I'm saying about the whole "free will" thing.
I hope that this has cleared up any miscommunication. If not, holla back. Thanks, mon ami!
Always In Christ,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
03/06/01 10:04 PM
Quick Add-in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just had a brainstorm to help this sink in. In Christianity, there are primarily 3 theological questions: 1) WHY? 2) HOW? 3) WHAT? With respect to the the Gospel, even with it's historical nature, the first two questions can be argued until Jesus comes back in some regard. The LAST question however cannot. We KNOW what happened. Jesus was born, lived, was crucified, buried, and resurrected to new life. THIS is the basis of the Gospel in which we believe. The existence or non-existence of "free will" has NOTHING to do with the "WHAT" on which our faith is based. See what I'm saying? Our primary unity should rest upon the person historical revelation of God in Christ.
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
churchmouse522
03/06/01 10:03 PM
Warning: highly intellectual response ahead...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Party-Pooper
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
03/06/01 10:10 PM
RE: Warning: highly intellectual response ahead...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, Mouse. I'm just as disappointed as YOU are. Trust me. LOL
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
03/06/01 10:36 PM
RE: whine anyone?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey hey hey!!!!
I didn't even get any cheese and it was all over!
luv ya anyway
oops...I mean
I'm facilly appearing to be on the same wavelength
springs
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
03/06/01 10:50 PM
RE: MALFUNCTION!: Houston, We Have A Problem...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bummer
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
MetroIceberg
03/06/01 10:56 PM
RE: to Mephi: a question of clarification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From reading everything here so far, I feel it necessary to say something here. I think what is being lost is the purpose of theology. The Gospel is there to bring the lost to God. It is simple. It is basic. There is very little theology in it, other than that God is the ultimate definition of good. Theology is just a further search for who God is; the search for His kingdom. After we have accepted the Gospel, that is where theology begins. The two cannot, and MUST not be intertwined. To do so adds too much extra baggage to the simplicity of Christ. Only once a person has been accepted into the Kingdom (and accepted the Kingdom) must their quest for deeper understanding (i.e. the search for God, the search for ultimate truth) begin. This is why careful searching of scripture is so necessary AFTER conversion. Now, there are those whose conversion has come after their study of the scriptures, but those are few, in my opinion. But as a general rule, the Gospel, and its simple message, is to be separated from theology.
Thanks for the chance to spew on this.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
03/06/01 10:59 PM
RE: MALFUNCTION!: Houston, We Have A Problem...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dude, chill a minute, we actually agree much more than you lead on. I agree that there is substantial content to the nonnegotiables/1st order stuff. That is why I posted my initial reflections with some hope. I am not lost in postmodern quasi-agreeableness and loyalty to empty shells of traditional jargon as you may suspect. I DO understand the "free will" debate to be second order.
Note this well, I DO. The most real event in all creation is the incarnation and thesignificance of that event. THAT is rich with content and not modified (first order) by "free will" theories in my thinking at least. I won't speak for Doc here, however.
I don't have time immediately to fully engage all your suspicions, but rest assured, for what its worth, there is much more agreement than otherwise, even in your recent reaction. I must have hit on some "buzzz" words that through you off.
When I spoke of playfulness, this might have thrown you. I did this precisely to rattle some of the cages of those who mistake their own second order work for God's first order work. I agree that they are related, and that the proper attitude of thinking about God is one of seriousness, but most evangelicals take there own ideas WAY too seriously and then those ideas begin to function dogmatically. So then...
You are wrong in your summary of Part I. I do think that we should strive for unity of MEANING of the words "sovereign" and "omniscient." Particularly with the latter, this debate is close to over in my mind. If the word "omniscient" means knowledge of all things knowable. We are all good. If it means knowledge of all things actual and possible, we are still all good. Only if it gets defined to specifically exclude Openness thinkers, as in exhaustive definite foreknowledge, do we run into problems, but this is so second order in nature that I might plead for a third order!
Part II
Mephi is concerned that Modes missed this:
Because the gospel is clearly based upon HISTORICAL revelation, specifically the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Not on any delineation of "free will" Modes did not miss it. We still stand in agreement.
Mephi said:
From what I gathered, you saw and understood my problem! Openness theology virtually makes it such that libertarian free will is NECESSARY for the Gospel to have meaning. But as you already noticed, this clearly defies Pauline soteriology and his idea of the Gospel. So the solution was clear to me (and I thought to you, too) OVTs would have to admit that libertarian free will was NOT as all-important as has been claimed by many open view theists. They would have to say that "free will" is NOT essential to the Gospel, biblically speaking, therefore meaning that compatibilism of any type would NOT render the Gospel false or meaningless.
Modes reassures:
Dude, I am still with you. It all depends upon how one concieves the problem as to what the solution is. What i do know is that God saw the problem, i am the problem, Christ fixed the problem. Beyond that it second order. We still hang together. I still say chill...
Part III
I hop you aren't saying i lucked into believing the first order stuff. Your flaking out on me man.
Mephi says:
Perhaps I misunderstood you... What doesn't get understood is that 1st and 2nd order discourse ideally SHOULD go together. They CANNOT truly be separated, in one sense. In other words, assertions made in the 1st order discourse should be able to be REASONABLY EXPLICATED by the 2nd order discourse, because the 2nd order discourse should lead to the assertions in the 1st order.
Modes:
Yup, still tracking with you. Go easy on that panic button...
Mephi says:
So how do we get to the 1st order level? We use the 2nd level stuff. What does this mean to what you are saying, Modes? I believe that we cannot arbitrarily SEPARATE the 1st and 2nd order discourses in order to use 1st order discourse as broad boundaries on subjects for theological "free reign", as it were.
Modes says:
Here we may have our first serious problem. In my mind 1st order stuff is largely revealed. See 1 Cor. 15:1-11. That sort of stuff, which even Paul had passed on to him. I am assuming that second order is where we get into the "faith seeking understanding" bit. (second order is the person making these great realities that person's OWN great reality! Faith seeking understanding, as they say...) Its more back and forth than unidirectional. Though i seriously hesitate to mess with 1st order stuff. Still, there is a lot of congruity here Mephi.
Mephi says:
In other words, if libertarian free will is not true (thereby making God not omnibenevolent, according to OVT standards), then the Gospel would NOT have meaning and even the term "salvation" would really not be meaningful. I think this is a very serious issue, actually. This, my friend Modes, is why I agreed with you so heavily.
Modes:
Again, speaking for myself, not others, i am still with you. I have haerd this argument more times than you have, I assure you, and I know the difference between a person making sense to themselves and a claim to have completely gotten it right. I agree that the Gospel does not stand or fall on my conception of libertarian freedom. What will it take to satisfy you Meph?
Mr. bundled undies says:
I do believe that a distinction needs to be made with respect to 1st and 2nd order discourse. But I DO NOT think that the 2 levels of discourse can be separated for rational discussion, for the sake of unity. Uncritical dogmatism in this regard is something that we should TOLERATE, not ENCOURAGE. Simple saints exist. That's just a fact. But we are not to let this ride throughout all theological circles. In the same way, we don't merely have theological terms and themes in the 1st order discourse such that they are so utterly AMBIGUOUS that they practically have no meaning. You didn't think that I would actually mean THIS when I agreed with you, did you?
Modes: No I didn't think you would mean that the categories would be so ambiguous. In fact i agree (again) with the sense of this statement by you.
Meph. I love yo man, but I have to say, I resent the lack of faith you show in my ability to reflect honestly what I am after. You actually did understand you, and i to some extent, did and do understand me. Let's be a little less suspicious of language here and rejoice in some very significant agreements! Ask questions, I am sure you have them. I assure you, we will not agree at every turn, but we do share a common center and that center is a MEANINGFUL point of reference.
peace and calm
As it stands, our most significant disagreement is over the helpfulness of a "free will" scheme in the second order discussion of the relation of various central/nonnegotiable and very specifically meaningful (think here Gospels, Paul, etc...) assertions about the meaning of God's grace for us.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
03/06/01 11:02 PM
RE: Quick Add-in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph, do you really think you are making a distinction that would seperate us? I hope not.
Pass the cheese...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
03/06/01 11:04 PM
RE: Warning: highly intellectual response ahead...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What?? Whooaa,
gimme my cheese. This ain't over yet.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
03/06/01 11:12 PM
RE: RE: whine anyone?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Springs, since you are a moderator, can you formally add a word to the discussion that guides this board?
Mephiphor:[mef-e-for] a category which describes the appearance of agreement but which is more likely a conspiracy to smuggle in a "free will" thesis; more generally, and secondarily--a phrase which seems to correspond to the thoughts of sir Mephistopheles, but in actuality cannot--unless Mephi says so...
I think we need to vote on the appropriateness of using mephiphors. See poll below:
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
03/06/01 11:15 PM
Poll Question: Should we employ "mephiphors" on this discussion board?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephiphor:[mef-e-for] a category which describes the appearance of agreement but which is more likely a conspiracy to smuggle in a "free will" thesis; more generally, and secondarily--a phrase which seems to correspond to the thoughts of sir Mephistopheles, but in actuality cannot--unless Mephi says so...
yes
no
What's a mephiphor?
Do I have to stop?
What if its yellow?
I love Mephi!
View Poll Results
Mephi2K
03/06/01 11:16 PM
Alright!: Mr. Bundled Undies Pulls The Wedgie Out (Riiiiip)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coupla things, Modes, my friend. First of all, I apologize if you felt that my speech was overemphatic. It wasn't because of me being upset or anything. That's just the way I type. But I will say this. This statement got me nervous...
"A standard part of my debating Calvinists on the topic of Open Theism has been to make the critical distinction between 1st and 2nd order discourse. This is precisely why i find it crazy that some would like to exclude Open Theists from the ETS or BGC or whatever, when, confessionally, Open Theists SHOULD recognize that the Gospel itself is distinct from our way of "thinking" it. Though, perhaps this is not always recognized, on both sides.
There should be unity in essentials and the essentials should be worded in NONNEGOTIABLE and BIBLICAL (vs. theological) language (this would/should exclude all "theological clubs" from dominating the confession)."
I think that you know how much I DETEST the crud that's going on with the BGC, EF and all that. I don't want to be brought into all that overpoliticized mess. Plus, I've read all of the essays over there...and some of this language you used kinda sounded VERY familiar to me. Very familiar. So, I just wanted to make sure that there was NO confusion about where I stood on the issue. I think all this overpoliticized, "he say"/"she say", us vs them crud is getting to me. Know what I'm talking bout, Modes?
To be honest, I'm VERY glad that we are so on point on so many things. This puts some of the wind back in my sails about this whole thing. Sweet! Again, I apologize if I hurt your feelings with my reply. That wasn't my purpose. Just complete clarification Cool stuff, homie!
Your Bud,
Mephi2K
PS: Yo, pass that cheese and start the music. Resume party!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
03/06/01 11:27 PM
RE: to Mephi: a question of clarification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah!!!
My first order is Cheddar sharp - sharp
My second order is White wine - dry
I hope you guys can keep agreeing at least long enough for me
to figure out what you are talking about!
cheers
springs
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:37 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 |
|
|