 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:00 PM (GMT -6) |   | NaveySealed
11/02/00 9:48 AM
Jeremiah 18:1-11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have read plenty of posts about the philosophical evidence for or against the open view. While I agree with William Hasker's views (incompatibilist and libertarian free-will) that he sets out in his book God, Time and Knowledge I still believe that the strongest evidence for the open view is found in God's word.
With that said, what are your views on Jeremiah 18:1-11? Is it strong support for the open view or not? When God says that He will repent in response to what a nation does in the future does He really mean that He will respond to the actions of a nation? If repent doesn't mean that God changes His mind then what does it mean (if it's an anthropomorphism, what does it mean?).
Enough of my questions! Here it is!!
Jeremiah 18:1-11
The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make. 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look, as the clay [is] in the potter's hand, so [are] you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 "The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy [it,] 8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 "And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant [it,] 10 "if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. 11 " Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, 'Thus says the LORD: "Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good." ' "
Sealed
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
11/02/00 4:57 PM
RE: Jeremiah 18:1-11 . "I may change my mind" Jere. 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree Sealed. The POINT of this passage, as well as Jeremiah 26 (vs. 3 "I may change my mind" [God]) is to encourage people to believe that God is a God who can and will change his mind when circumstances warrant it. I find it so odd that (at present) 58% of the people on Boyd's poll think it is not even evangelical to believe that God can truly change his mind -- when believing this is what these passages encourage us to do. I mean, even if you disagree with the Open view, can you blame people for taking this literally? BESO
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
trosie
11/03/00 12:00 PM
RE: Jeremiah 18:1-11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sealed and Beso and anyone else reading this:
I want to start off by saying that what I am writing today is so different from what I would have wrote six months ago. I agree that the best place to find truth is in God's word. I find that the more I study the bible, the more the open view makes sense to me. I too am stunned by the poll. It amazes me that so many people do not see the open view as being evangelical. Jeremiah is an EXCELLENT example of stating the fact that God DOES at times decide to go a different route from His original plan based on peoples decisions. I believe the open view is so liberating for people who ask the "whys" of life and thus can be an effective evangelical tool.
I believe that God has a "perfect" plan for each of us, and yet He leaves it for us to decide whether we will follow it or not. If His original plan for us(plan A) gets blown off kilter, He goes to an alternate plan (plan B).... I believe this is backed up in Jeremiah 18:4. I recall in one of Dr. Boyd's 'Coloring Outside the Lines' series that he shares about a woodworking project he is doing with his son. They find that they need to keep remodifying from the original blueprint and end up creating something different, (but just as nice), than they had planned.
Further down, in Jeremiah 18:7-8 God states quite clearly, "The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom.... if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from evei, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it." I believe He is saying that His decision, (and the future), isn't final until the people make their choice of which way they will go. He knows how they might decide, (because He is omniscient), but doesn't know for certain because they have not yet made their decision. The decision hasn't yet been made so the decision doesn't yet exist. In Genesis1 it is stated that He speaks and then it is created; from that moment He completely knows this created thing. This is reinforced in Jeremiah 9, "And the instant I speak...."
Finally in verse 11 He is warning them of the consequense that awaits them if they do not turn from sin. He is clearly giving them a choice and is stating that He will do either Plan A or Plan B, depending on their decision. To me this is shouting out loudly that He hasn't made up His mind yet on what He will do because He is waiting for the people to make their decision. I believe God knows the big scheme but not every decision we will make until we have made it. He takes all the decisions we make and is able to orchestrate them to work out into His big picture. What a God, eh!?!
There was a time I would have thought that people who believed that some of the future was not yet known to God were somewhat irreverent because I believed they were putting God on somewhat of the same level as man. Now I understand God to be even bigger because He does't have to be controlling of every detail, but He is open to working with peoples decisions in bringing about His plan. I see that God is able to be more of a loving God because He loves us enough to give us freedom. He wants us to choose to love and follow Him but will not force that on us. I find that praying makes so much more sense now. I pray with the knowledge that my prayers can indeed have an impact on the outcome. I agree with you that the bible is the BEST source for finding the truth! For me the bible is continually reinforcing the open view.
Blessings to you all,
trosie
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
11/03/00 1:26 PM
RE: Jeremiah 18:1-11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Room,
I want to make some remarks to more than one post in this post. Thus the "room" thing. I hope everyone's having a good day.
NaveySealed asked:
"With that said, what are your views on Jeremiah 18:1-11? Is it strong support for the open view or not? When God says that He will repent in response to what a nation does in the future does He really mean that He will respond to the actions of a nation? If repent doesn't mean that God changes His mind then what does it mean (if it's an anthropomorphism, what does it mean?)."
Mephi's Reply:
Maybe it's just me, but I see things a tad differently here. My paraphase from my exegesis:
"Since I'm God, can't I do what the heck I want with you, Israel. If you repent of any evil, then any type of punishment I was going to bring on you will be relented. If I tell you I'm gonna do some good to you, and you keep doing evil, then don't expect all that good stuff I talked about. I'm bringing the pain right about now, so do good!"
First of all, from what I understand about Old Testament prophecy, many of the prophecies were understood to be conditional. Prophecy is not merely FOREtelling, it is FORTHtelling. But the conditionality of the prophesies doesn't logically entail God changing his mind, as it were. Moreover, I'd like to note the incomprehesibility of achronological and indeterministic speech. Human beings are time-saturated beings. For God to talk to us outside of the context of chronological order and determinism would seem extremely idiotic and confusing to us.
One of the best examples of this that I have ever seen was in a graphic novel comic called "Watchmen" In "Watchman", there is a character called Dr. Manhattan. Dr. Manhattan is vastly powerful, to the point that he can effectively see ALL time as one now. As a result, he often speaks achronologically. He will at times speak of things far in the past and far in the future as present realities. As a result many people are geniunely confused by him and cannot understand him. ( If any of you ever get a chance to go to a Border's or Barnes & Noble Bookstore, I advise that you'd check it out.)
Let me state this succinctly. God's communication with humanity means a tacit and NECESSARY condescension on His part. We are finite, time based creatures, with LIMITED knowledge and correspondingly, limited ability to predict the future. It is all to easy to see God's speech to Biblical characters that show some type of anthropomorphic dimension such as the "changing of the mind" as a NECESSARY condescension, by which God graciously communicates with us. Moreover, this view is MUCH more coherent with the implications of God's omniscience.
Beso said:
"I find it so odd that (at present) 58% of the people on Boyd's poll think it is not even evangelical to believe that God can truly change his mind -- when believing this is what these passages encourage us to do."
Mephi's Reply:
To be honest, I don't find it odd at all. Bottom line: many people view evangelicalism with the view of the more exalted "Classical" view of God. Open View Theism, to many, smacks like so much liberal process theology or an half-baked derivative. (This is NOT my view. I am saying what other evangelicals have stated to me, though)
Trosie said:
"I believe that God has a "perfect" plan for each of us, and yet He leaves it for us to decide whether we will follow it or not. If His original plan for us(plan A) gets blown off kilter, He goes to an alternate plan (plan B)...."
"To me this is shouting out loudly that He hasn't made up His mind yet on what He will do because He is waiting for the people to make their decision. I believe God knows the big scheme but not every decision we will make until we have made it. He takes all the decisions we make and is able to orchestrate them to work out into His big picture. What a God, eh!?!"
Mephi's Reply:
I must admit. I don't see how this view can seriously be maintained, given close observation of the notions of human agency, free will, determinism and God's omniscience. As I've said before, this stuff is tight for a finite God, for sure. But for an omniscient creator of all reality? I just don't see it....
Trosie said:
"Now I understand God to be even bigger because He does't have to be controlling of every detail, but He is open to working with peoples decisions in bringing about His plan. I see that God is able to be more of a loving God because He loves us enough to give us freedom. He wants us to choose to love and follow Him but will not force that on us.
Mephi's Reply:
Some things:
1) Notice the notion of the "bigger God" and remember what I said before about the notion of the more worthy, heroic God that we love to purvey.
2) Why is God's love incessantly linked with "freedom" which, in my opinion, has been SO poorly defined and delineated? I challenge everyone to really get into the concept of human agency and it's relation to "freedom" as opposed to things like scientific determinism, indeterminism, or compatibilism. As I've said before, there is sometimes caricaturing going on (see the "computer" stuff used on the 6 theses of the warfare view), and it's possible that a fair evaluation is not being made.
Trosie said:
"I find that praying makes so much more sense now. I pray with the knowledge that my prayers can indeed have an impact on the outcome."
Mephi's Reply:
This is why I keep harping on the notion of human agency and soft determinism. If these two things were truly understood, then there would be no confusion as to how prayer is TRULY efficacious and does make a difference in our reality, and yet still in the realm of determinism.
On the real, though. Between the pragmatic relief received by Open View adherents and the highly technical, though necessary, explanations behind OVT's implausibility, disputing against OVT is an uphill battle, to be certain. Take this in the context of the current trend of postmodernism that we are currently facing, where the preiminence of intuition and emotionalism has supplanted the cold rationalism of modernism, and it appears that OVT's on almost irrefutable ground. I think I'll have to write a book or something... LOL
That's all I have right now. Be well, saints!
Warmest regards,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
NaveySealed
11/04/00 4:52 AM
RE: Jeremiah 18:1-11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi2k said
"But the conditionality of the prophesies doesn't logically entail God changing his mind, as it were."
There you have it. The text doesn't mean what it says!
7 "The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy [it,] 8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I WILL REPENT OF THE DISASTER THAT I THOUGHT TO BRING UPON IT. 9 "And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant [it,] 10 "if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I WILL REPENT CONCERNING THE GOOD WITH WHICH I SAID I WOULD BENEFIT IT.
This passage is a total misrepresentation of God according to Mephi2k's view. If God "knows" every decision that every person and nation will make then there is no room for God to claim that He will repent of anything since everything happens according to His will.
Sealed
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
11/04/00 9:33 AM
RE: Jeremiah 18:1-11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sealed
How's it going, buddy? It's been a while. Let me say just a coupla things, ok?
You said:
"There you have it. The text doesn't mean what it says!"
I got a coupla more scriptures, ok? See what you think.
Ps 18
6 In my distress I called to the LORD; I cried to my God for help. From his temple he heard my voice; my cry came before him, into his ears.
7 The earth trembled and quaked, and the foundations of the mountains shook; they trembled because he was angry.
8 Smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it.
9 He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet.
10 He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind.
11 He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him-- the dark rain clouds of the sky.
12 Out of the brightness of his presence clouds advanced, with hailstones and bolts of lightning.
Isa 30
27 See, the Name of the LORD comes from afar, with burning anger and dense clouds of smoke; his lips are full of wrath, and his tongue is a consuming fire.
28 His breath is like a rushing torrent, rising up to the neck. He shakes the nations in the sieve of destruction; he places in the jaws of the peoples a bit that leads them astray.
Isa 66
15 See, the LORD is coming with fire, and his chariots are like a whirlwind; he will bring down his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
16 For with fire and with his sword the LORD will execute judgment upon all men, and many will be those slain by the LORD.
Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to ask you about apocalyptic and prophetic material. Is everything in these types of writing to be taken literally? I don't think so. In each of these cases, it's not thought that God is being disingenuous. But, then there are those who say "Well, you must understand, the hearers of apocalyptic and prophetic didn't really expect it all to be literally true. However, stuff like God talking to Isaiah about Hezekiah, and the Jeremiah thing really seems to make little sense UNLESS it was meant to be taken literally." Heh. This is where my former discussion comes in about a condescension for contact with human beings on THEIR terms.
You said:
"This passage is a total misrepresentation of God according to Mephi2k's view. If God "knows" every decision that every person and nation will make then there is no room for God to claim that He will repent of anything since everything happens according to His will."
Mephi:
Yo, lemme confess again. I think I see a trend that really interests me in various biblical exegetes with regard to the use of literalism. Whenever there is a certain position or agenda that a person wants to hold, they often approach scriptures using its authority as the Word of God in an indirect stranglehold. How do they do this? They KNOW that some people hold the Bible in very high regard, and as such want to do what it says as much as possible. Therefore, on some fairly ambiguously understood scriptures, they can say "Well, can't we just take the scriptures for what they SAY?", eliminating any type of phenomenological, anthropomorphic, or cultural concerns. Implicitly, this is taken to be a superior method by many people who are, frankly, not that educated in exegetical or hermeneutical processes. Anyone would tries to oppose such a view ON phenomenological, anthropomorphic, or cultural concerns is then said to be going against the "word of God", in some effect. Bottom line: New experiences strongly influence the interpretation of Scripture.
When a new trend develops in society, we often try to formulate alternative hermeneutical approaches to either incorporate or explain such trends, in order to keep the Bible relevant. This is not necessary wrong, in and of itself, as I affirm later in this writing. But sometimes, it can be taken a bit far. We only need to look at the liberation, feminist and pro-homosexuality theologians who find interesting ways of exegeting Scripture to justify their otherwise fairly radical positions. (Note: So I will not be misunderstood, this is not a complete dismissal of those theologies. There ARE some things to be learned from them. However, I'm just noting what occurs in the hermeneutical process at times)
I personally feel that, possibly, the same thing going is on with OVT. People nowadays are more intimate and want a more intimate God. The time of Neoorthodoxian ideas of God's exalted transcendence and absolute sovereignty are over for many people. William Fowler, psychologist, creator of the Faith Development model, and writer of "Faithful Change" notes this trend in his work. Due to this, different theologies have been emerging in the last 70 years or so. Once viable presupps change, noticably, theologies change too. Here's an example of Clark Pinnock, from "From Augustine to Arminius: A Pilgrimage of Theology":
"Therefore, I had to ask myself if it was biblically possible to hold that God knows everything that can be known, but that free choices would not be something that can be known even by God because they are not yet settled in reality. Decisions not yet made do not exist anywhere to be known even by God. They are potential--yet to be realized but not yet actual. God can predict a great deal of what we will choose to do, but not all of it, because some of it remains hidden in the mystery of human freedom. Can this conjecture be scriptural? When I went to the Scriptures with this question in mind, I found more support than I had expected."
What does this say, my friends? When it comes to worldviews and interpretation, you find what you are looking for, and no more. This is central to how humans perceive reality. Our rational process has filters by which we determine what is real and what is not. We can adjust these filters to incorporate more or less data. The same phenomena exists in the hermeneutical process. In the case of Clark Pinnock, earlier in the work, he made it CLEAR his distaste for the "horrible decree" and the "logic of Calvinism" This gave him a way out. Pure and simple. Now, is this to say that he wasn't being honest with himself or the text? Nope. I WOULD say that, in this case, being honest with himself LED to alternate readings of the text.
Remember, how I said that I thought that psychology, philosophy, and theology were all integrated. This is why. Freud was right when he said basically that we dislike anxiety and strive to relieve it any various ways subconsciously. However, as other psychoanalytic theorists have realized, this also takes place on a conscious level as well. As Ghost Dog Girl shows us, the problem of evil can be a REAL sticking place for us. How can we resolve all this evil with the notion of an "all-good" God. (I hope that you all have read the Sudduth thing...) For one thing, God knowing ALL things that would come to pass sure seems to exacerbate the problem, not alleviate it. Thus, it MUST go. Hmmm...can we find a Scripture basis for doing so? If we can, is it a GENUINE option for us Scripturally? Lo and behold, it is! All we have to do is take some of the Scripture more literally. But what's unfair is that instead of trying to explain the "openness" Scriptures in light of the "omniscience" Scriptures, it's done vice versa. Again, from Pinnock:
"Most Bible readers simply pass over this evidence and do not take it seriously. They assume the traditional notion of exhaustive omniscience supported more by the old logic than by the biblical text. Of course the Bible praises God for his detailed knowledge of what will happen and what he himself will do. But it does not teach limitless foreknowledge, because the future will include as-yet-undecided human choices and as-yet-unselected divine responses to them. The God of the Bible displays an openness to the future that the traditional view of omniscience simply cannot accommodate."
The issue is not taken certain scriptures more seriously than others. It's the hermeneutical framework that we choose. We must understand that some hermeneutic frameworks ARE better than others. If so, on what basis should they be judged? I believe they should be judged on the explantory power of biblical and experiential data without contrivance.
If we are to take the position of Christus Victor, then ALL disciplines brought to bear on a particular doctrin observed should reasonably cohere with regard to said doctrine. My question is which hermeneutical method is easier and more coherent: Interpreting omniscience in light of openness...OR interpreting openness in light of omniscience? Like scientific theories, we are looking for something that most adequately explains ALL the data in ALL the realms. It's my conviction that that latter is much more formidable in this regard then the latter, with respect to open view theism's OWN cosmological and theological suppositions (A God IN time where there are both actualities and possibilities). Let me emphasize that. I'm not talking a timeless God like seen in Classical theism. I'm talking about open view theism's own view of God's relationship to time.
Make no mistake, this discussion goes far deeper than just "taking God at his word", as I've been told so many times before. So, as this is the case, let us not only look at Scripture itself, but look deeper to the METHODOLOGICAL approaches that we take to Scripture, as well as it's coherence with other areas. I cannot stress the importance of this.
Sorry this is so long. Glad to see ya, Sealed. Have a blessed day, today
Warmest regards,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
11/04/00 9:41 AM
RE: RE: Jeremiah 18:1-11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the end of Mephi's discourse on 11/4 4:52am (Mephi, do you ever sleep!?) she (or he) suggests that the main appeal of Open Theism is its "pragmatic relief" and that it somehow fits in with the "trend towards postmodernism." By contrast, Mephi laments that her exposure of the "implausibility" of Open Theism must necessarily be "highly technical." Hence she seems not to be optimistic about the prospects of winning people over to her view. I like Mephi. I like her gracious demeanor in her dialogues. I'm glad she's on this discussion board. BUT I sometimes just do not get where in thunder she's coming from! (no offense Mephi). My observation has been that one of the main emotive driving forces among people who reject the Open view is that they fear giving up the "pragmatic relief" which they think affirming the traditional view of foreknowledge gives them. Not only this, but Open Theists are (or at least should be) as committed to objective truth as classical theists. Boyd certainly doesn't concede anything to post-modernism in his God of the Possible or Cynic Sage or Son of God. In fact, he blasts the post-moderners in this latter book. Finally, on a philosophical level, the Open Theists sometimes need to be "highly technical" as well as everyone else. Sorry Mephi, but on this account you just aren't going to get my sympathy.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
NaveySealed
11/04/00 11:19 AM
RE: Jeremiah 18:1-11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi2K
Psalm 18 and Isaiah 30 and 66 all use figures of speech THAT HAVE SOME KIND OF INTELLIGIBLE MEANING. When people claim that God changing His mind is a phenomonological anthropopathism they strip the words of any intelligible meaning. There has never been an alternative meaning given for Jer 18:7-10 because it is incredibly clear what the passage is communicating (this is not surprising since God is THE communicator and is able to get His message across). If you have an alternative interpretation for the passage then please present it.
Whatever response you come up with please don't let it be anything like your last post which had so many INSULTING statements that were hurled towards us open theists. Take the following paragraph from your last post.
"Yo, lemme confess again. I think I see a trend that really interests me in various biblical exegetes with regard to the use of literalism. Whenever there is a certain position or agenda that a person wants to hold, they often approach scriptures using its authority as the Word of God in an indirect stranglehold. How do they do this? They KNOW that some people hold the Bible in very high regard, and as such want to do what it says as much as possible. Therefore, on some fairly ambiguously understood scriptures, they can say "Well, can't we just take the scriptures for what they SAY?", eliminating any type of phenomenological, anthropomorphic, or cultural concerns. Implicitly, this is taken to be a superior method by many people who are, frankly, not that educated in exegetical or hermeneutical processes. Anyone would tries to oppose such a view ON phenomenological, anthropomorphic, or cultural concerns is then said to be going against the "word of God", in some effect. Bottom line: New experiences strongly influence the interpretation of Scripture."
If you believe that there are any "phenomenological, anthropomorphic, or cultural concerns" that we should be taking into account when reading Jer 18 then please point them out. It's hard to believe that Boyd would leave this crucial info out of his inerpretation of the passage (and other passages like Gen 6:5-6; 22:12; Ex 32:9-14; 1 Sam 13:13-14; Is 38:1-8; Jer 3:6-7; 26; 32:35; Hos 11; Jonah).
By the way, I did read the Bible with deterministic presuppostions in the past. I found that reading the Bible while recognizing that the future was partly open (risk-taking God) provided a superior background to that of the deterministic one (risk-free God).
Sealed
Hebrews 5:8
though He was a Son, [yet] He learned obedience by the things which He suffered
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ghost-dog-girl
11/04/00 12:59 PM
checking our motives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello friend. I mostly agree with your last post, but I would like to clarify a bit.
First, the open view is not a new trend. There have been representatives throughout Christian history. Ironically, I think part of the reason the open view is getting so much attention lately is because of the controversy surrounding it. For the first time (that we know of), other Chrisians are challenging the orthodoxy of open theist Christians.
Second, you quote Pinnock as saying that he searched the scriptures in order to see if his ideas about God's knowledge of free creatures' decisions were biblically warranted. I personally do not consider this a discredit to him, but as evangelicals, we should all check our actions and ideas against scripture. If his experience were characteristic of all open theists, then you might have a compelling case that the trend toward open theism is primarily culturally motivated.
But in Greg Boyd's intro to God of the Possible (if I remember correctly), rather than attributing his interest to distaste for God's "horrible decree," he shares that the Bible (specifically the story of God's decision to add fifteen years to Hezekiah's life--even though God initially said Hezekiah would not recover--in response to Hezekiah's prayer) first made him question his commitments to the classical view.
I responded with great hostility the first time I heard about the open view. My encounter with the open view become part of a process of healing and growth beyond my previously fundamentalist mentality. On the other hand, I've heard venerable old Baptists respond to the open view with a shrug and say, "I've held that view for 50 years."
My point is, the reasons people initially change their views from classical to open are about as numerous as open view theists themselves, and any argument based on generalizations concerning their motives is on very shaky ground. Neither should their initial motivation discredit whatever further attempts they make to render their view coherent, as long as they faithfully pursue this.
One final comment. You say: "When it comes to worldviews and interpretation, you find what you are looking for, and no more." I think this is mostly true, except it obscures the human propensity to find what we're NOT looking for (i.e. inherit or absorb insitutionalized and/or socialized assumptions about the way the world is). It also fails to accont for those who successfully alter their worldviews (I'm thinking of my own experience with fundamentalism). It also leaves little room for revelation. And where would we be without that?
Thanks for your thoughts. You challenge us in a very healthy and respectful way. I appreciate that. Ciao.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
11/04/00 1:20 PM
RE: RE: Jeremiah 18:1-11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sealed,
Oh, my.
Sealed said:
"Whatever response you come up with please don't let it be anything like your last post which had so many INSULTING statements that were hurled towards us open theists."
Well, good heavens! I'm looking at the paragraph here...and I'm trying to see what "insulting" statements I've made here. This is the only thing that I can come up with. Maybe you took my statement to mean that JUST open view theists INTENTIONALLY, and DECEPTIVELY pull the wool over people's eyes using the Bible are their tool of oppression. If this is the case, then I'm sorry that that's what you got out of it. It wasn't my intention. All I meant to state was a trend that I noticed happening in many evangelical circles, and that OVT might have some aspects of that. I never said that it was some type of hideous plot or something. Moreover, let me go back to something I said far earlier. In my 10/29/00 5:37 PM reply to ModesofThought:
"Hopefully, we both understand that this exercise is not for insulting, but for illumination, and we can both keep this in mind, first and foremost, if we perceive anything that is said to be pejorative in further correspondence."
It is in this spirit that I intend to maintain this entire discussion. If anything is ever taken as pejorative, please count it to a short-sightedness on my part which may have led to miscommunication. I am a firm believer of geniune dialogue that takes place in the realm of civility and respect. I will never violate this principle while here. So, please accept my humble apologies for any offense you got from my statement. I'll try to be more clear in the future, ok?
Sealed said:
"If you believe that there are any "phenomenological, anthropomorphic, or cultural concerns" that we should be taking into account when reading Jer 18 then please point them out."
Mephi:
Well, I thought that I had done that with my explanation of God's necessary condescension of revelation. This is the main consideration that I keep in perspective: we NEVER see God as he truly is. As I see it, divine revelation and theologizing based upon that revelation is ALWAYS in some sense analogical. This is what is known, in some quarters, as the incomprehensibility of God. What we know about God is in his self-revelation, the greatest of which is the incarnation in Christ where he took on ALL human dimensions. In other words, I take a "critical realist" view of revelation instead of a "naive realist" view. This view of ontology says that human perception of reality is necessarily different from from the objective reality that is being percieved. The perception is reliable in a pragmatic way, but is NOT identical to the objective reality itself. Now, how does this apply to divine revelation. God's revelation to us is RELIABLE testimony to who God is and who He wants us to be. It is NOT, however, representative of the sum total of who God is. In other words, there is a difference between God AS WE PERCEIVE HIM and God AS HE IS, but we trust that God's revelation is an adequate mode of understand in some way, who and what God is. It is very possible that statements that indicate God "changing his mind" fall directly into this line of thought. This is the phenomenological issue that I believe needs to be considered.
Blessing be upon you, Seale. I hope we're still cool.
Warmest regards,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
11/04/00 1:22 PM
RE: RE: RE: Jeremiah 18:1-11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Beso,
Consider me a vampire. My hours are pretty much all over the place. LOL
"BUT I sometimes just do not get where in thunder she's coming from! (no offense Mephi)."
Mephi:
I appreciate the accolades, but I'd like to know what this statement means. I had a hard time interpreting it. Do you mean that you're not understanding my motives or something like that? Are my statements not making sense? I'm sorry for my ignorance here. (maybe my lack of sleep is catching up with me. lol)
Beso said:
"My observation has been that one of the main emotive driving forces among people who reject the Open view is that they fear giving up the "pragmatic relief" which they think affirming the traditional view of foreknowledge gives them"
Mephi:
I would agree with this statement. And I believe it's wrong to do that. The main point is that pragmatism and emotional satiation are not what make a view true. The agenda or position in consideration is irrelevant. I don't think it's right to base judgements of truth on solely pragmatic or rhetorical concerns. And I also don't believe it's right to hold to positions on a strictly ad hoc fideistic position. No matter WHO does it. Let me make it clear here that my statements in no way try to single out open view theism as an entity to be attacked, as if open view theism is the ONLY school of thought who falls into certain problem areas. To be sure, I highly disagree with a significant amount of the things that Classicalists do theologically and philosophically. The only reason that I highlight OVT is because that's the context with which we are intimately dealing here.
Beso said:
"Finally, on a philosophical level, the Open Theists sometimes need to be 'highly technical' as well as everyone else. Sorry Mephi, but on this account you just aren't going to get my sympathy."
Mephi:
LOL Well, let me first say that the intent of my statement was not emotional appeal. It wouldn't do any good to do that. (I try not to rely on rhetorical devices too much) I was expressing my personal sense of frustration at a given situation. That's all. Moreover, I never said that OV theists never used highly technical language and I didn't think that I insinuated that either. If it was taken as such, I apologize.
LOL! I keep thinking about that. Say, Beso, I don't want your sympathy. All I want from you or anyone else is to look at all the angles and make the best decision on that basis and that basis alone. I could ask no more than that of anyone.
For Beso:
1) What did you think of my take on agency theory, its implications, and distinction from "free will"?
2) What did you think of my description of my suppositions and their similarity to OVT's?
Warmest regards,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
11/04/00 1:24 PM
fellow graphic novels fan??????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi, are you a graphic novels fan, too? Have you read Craig Thompson's "Good-bye Chunky Rice"? Don't miss it. I'm also a fan of Mike Ulrich's "Mad Man," Alan Moore's "V for Vendetta," and Frank Miller's "Electra Assassin."
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
11/04/00 10:39 PM
RE: RE: RE: Jeremiah 18:1-11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi, you claimed in your last dialogue with Sealed that we never see God as he truly is. On this basis you feel comfortable relogating the language about God changing his mind to the level of anthropomorphisms. But how do you know this isn't how God truly is -- unless you already KNOW how God truly is (that is, he doesn't change his mind)? You say God has to condesend to speak to us -- which is why he speaks (deceivingly?) about changing his mind. But he seems perfectly capable of talking straight (in your view) when it comes to telling us he DOESN'T change his mind. And besides, how does God telling us repeatedly in Scripture that he changes his mind help us understand him (that is, how is this a helpful condesension) if in fact God doesn't change his mind. He encourages us to think of him as one who changes his mind (Jer. 18 and 26 for example), but we're heretics if we actually do so! ? Either I'm confused, your confused, or God's confused.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Up to Msg List | Send to a Friend | Help << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Community Moderators: adiaphora
Site-Specific Moderators: springs
Jump To: cdearmond's Forums Christus Victor Ministries
Christus Victor Ministries
This site is part of the Christus Victor Ministries Community
GET A FREE MESSAGE BOARD. CLICK HERE.
Add This Forum to Your Site | Get a Free Message Board | Browse Other CoolBoards
What is CoolBoard? | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | ©1999-2000 CoolBoard.com
Copyright © Christus Victor Ministries, 2000, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:53 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 |
|
|