 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 10:24 AM (GMT -6) |   | Mephi2K
12/09/00 11:57 PM
An Analogy for Compatibility?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whussup, everybody!
HEY, Modes! Thanks for the poll on Biblical authority, man! You reminded me of a thought that I had LONG before coming to this board that may well be of importance. This may interact a with your "To Deny Freedom..." post. (Sheesh, I should be studying...but anyways...) Lion-Lamb, I think you may like this...
In one post, Dr. Boyd said this:
"This represents what I consider to be one of the most signficant flaws in Reformed theology: there is NO WAY to render intelligible the idea that WE are responsible for things that GOD has predestined us to do. I have asked for analogies that might render this supposition intelligible for five years and have yet to receive one.” (Emphasis Boyd's)
This is my first attempt at an adequate analogy that reconciles divine sovereignty and human agency. (I have the other main one in the wings, as well) For 2001...
ANALOGY #1: Biblical Inspiration
Questions:
Who was responsible for the production of the Bible? God or human beings? If you say that both parties are responsible, how can BOTH parties be responsible, in a true sense?
Think about the answer for a sec....now proceed.
If we were to be quite honest, this question is of the same type as the question often asked in these discussions about Open View Theism. It would be like this:
"How can human beings really be accountable for there own actions, if we posit any type of predestination or exhaustive foreknowledge by God? How can we really say that 'we' are doing anything?"
This is from an earlier work that I've done. I did this as one of my personal reflections on the Sovereignty of God and how it may relate to human agency and freedom. It deals with a concept of inspiration called the verbal plenary view...
"One way is to look at this solution analogically is by examining another theological subject: inspiration. The verbal plenary view is the view currently held by most evangelicals. Dr. Hart, an evangelical himself, maintains that this view illustrates the concursive nature of the dynamic between human agency and divine will. In this view, the influence is oblique and providential in that God is active in the lives of the inspired writers of Scripture to the point that the writer, using his own sense of style, language, and temperament, actually writes down exactly what God wants written. Indeed, there is no dictation or "mind control" present. The writer gives expression to divine concepts using his own powers of cognition and volition. There is an uncanny resemblance between the verbal plenary doctrine of Scriptural inspiration and the moderate Calvinistic view of God's sphere of influence and control. Could this action with inspired writers be nothing less than a microcosmic, more specified model of God's expressed sovereignty in human history? The possibility is worthy of examination.
In the verbal plenary view, human agency and responsibility is preserved while being held in tandem with God's divine will and absolute ultimate control. Taking this into a larger context, it could be feasible that ALL human activity, in some way, falls within a similar category of thought. This is not to say that the doctrine of inspiration is negated by this possibility, in a similar manner that pantheism eliminates the idea of divinity. On the contrary, if a modified verbal plenary view of creation is espoused, it would bolster the understandings of the doctrine of providence and the theistic outlook on the personal interaction of God with humanity. Also, this view reconciles nicely with the Judeo-Christian idea of God working in and through history. In effect, the synergistic work in human history would turn out to be, as G. C. Berkouwer has stated, "God's acts in men's acts…" The feasibility of this as a possibility can only be denied if the verbal plenary view is rejected as improbable."
Slightly Restated:
If the verbal plenary view is a viable option for a doctrine of biblical inspiration, then the basic paradigm upon which it is based is intelligible. What this means is that genuine human agency and responsibility WITHIN a confluent sphere of exhaustive divine orchestration does have meaning!
This truly has the effect of "God's Word in man's words" BOTH parties are responsible for the construction of the Bible in a REAL way. When we ask the question "Who wrote Romans?" The IMMEDIATE answer is, of course, St. Paul. But when we think on the larger scale, we can say, without being wrong, that GOD composed Romans, by virtue of his providential work in bringing St. Paul to the state that he could WRITE Romans.
(Note: The verbal plenary view is distinct from both the dictation and dynamic theories. Please keep this in mind)
Now let me backtrack. Again, remember what I am saying. I am not saying that the Spirit of God pancausally works such that all human acts are DIRECTLY a work of God's will, negating true human agency.
What I am saying is that the verbal plenary view of inspiration holds that human agency is NOT necessarily incompatible with divine sovereignty. If this is really the case, then it can be used analogically to support the thesis that theistic predestination or exhaustive divine orchestration need NOT be considered, by definition, incompatible with human agency. In other words, human freedom in the highest sense is not tacitly negated by positing predestination.
Before you go, really think about God's sovereignty and what it means. Think about HOW God can be seen as ruler of ALL the nations of the world and such, by some of the Prophets. Now proceed...
So...what do you think? Is this line of thinking valid? Does this analogy make any sense? I think it does....but hey, you be the judge, dear reader.
Your humble servant and friend,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/10/00 2:46 PM
RE: An Analogy for Compatibility?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice work Mephi! If I held to the verbal plenary view, as many evangelicals do, I think I'd be in trouble! It is a helpful connection (that between inspiration theories and the questions about agency in general). The problem remains for me however in that I do not find the verbal plenary view plausible. It rings of that wonderful place where one hopes that we can have it both ways and not have to pay for the costs of our convictions. I will pick this up some more under the heading of the Bible poll when I get a chance. Blessings to you old friend. Glad to see you frequenting the discussion, your participation is enlightening.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Geebob
12/11/00 4:16 AM
RE: An Analogy for Compatibility?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi,this may not directly adress your question but I have two hang ups with this.
1 God does not punish Biblical authors for writting the Bible.
2 God does not hate scripture.
but God does hate sin and he punishes unrepentant sinners. It still seems meaningless to say that he had somehow wills it all before the existence of the agents and then holds them responsible.
As for whether or not plenery inspiration is true or not, I don't know.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
beso
12/11/00 5:12 PM
RE: RE: An Analogy for Compatibility?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi, you did not provide an analogy. You at most provided another illustration of the problem -- a parallel problem if you will. You provide no analogy to understand either Scriptural inspiration or the broader question of divine determination and creaturely moral responsibility. In truth, as Geebob points out, the scriptural inspiration issue isn't even a parallel... for the authors aren't ever BLAMED for being inspired to write things they SHOULD NOT WRITE.
Give it another go Meph.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/12/00 7:56 PM
RE: RE: An Analogy for Compatibility?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To geebob and Beso,
In what context would we expect to find God blaming a human author of Scripture for making an error? Would there be a divinely editted version (DEV, but surely by now a NDEV)? Perhaps an insert in the front criticizing Matt and Luke for deviating too much from Mark? Perhaps a preface that says, "I don't fully endorse all of the propositions put forth herein, particularly the impeccatory Psalms and the bit about Dinah. - the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. ps. thanks for reading."
Mephi's point is clear, if you understand God to be working through human authors to produce a divinely inspired text (particularly if you are an inerrantist), then perhaps there is an analogy here with how God acts through humans generally. SINCE the writers CLAIM responsibility for the texts themselves, as with Mephi's reference to Paul and Romans. The problem is not so easily dismissed...Paul is not God's psuedonym. Is Paul instead God's plagerist? Just wondering out loud...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/14/00 1:46 AM
Paging Dr. Boyd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the cover, Modes. My man...
Say, Doc. Have any perspectives on this? After all, it's YOUR five year drought of an adequate analogy that I'm attempting to satisfy. Get at me.
Much love and respect,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/16/00 1:21 PM
Hello, Doc?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc,
Help me out here, whenever you get a spare moment. The silence on this issue is deafening.
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
12/17/00 8:42 PM
RE: Hello, Doc?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for the delay Meph. I've been pretty tied up lately, as you could tell by my futile attempts to keep up with the dialogue on the
"Subjunctives" thread.
Now, does your analogy work? Seems to me, NO. It's one thing for God to ensure that an author doesn't err. This is what I think God did with the biblical authors. It's quite a different thing for God to ordain that agent x does evil deed y, "in such a way" that agent x is responsible for it, not God. I have no problem with God restricting freedom at points (e.g. to insure Scripture is without error). MY problem is with God restricting freedom in ways that insure that evil deeds come to pass. I don't see that your analogy does anything to address this at all.
Besides, I think BESO is right in noting that your "analogy" isn't an analogy that sheds analogical light on anything. It's rather, at best, a "parallel" example of the sort of think that we need an analogy to understand. What I've tried to show, however, is that its not even this.
Sorry Meph. Nice try. But I think I'm still in the drought.
Greg
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/17/00 9:00 PM
Mephi Reels In Utter Disbelief!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sir Mephistopheles has to take a break from the unexpected blow received here today. Definitely, look for a response in the future. In the meantime, would YOU like to say something, Modes?
Perplexed as A Theologian Can Be,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
12/17/00 10:35 PM
RE: Mephi Reels In Utter Disbelief!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph, Did I say something wrong?
Greg
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/18/00 12:36 AM
RE: RE: Hello, Doc?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The best way to settle the confusion at this point is:
1. for Dr. Boyd to tell Mephi whether or not Dr. Boyd believes that verbal plenary inspiration (VPI hereafter) is a viable view of Scriptural inspiration in its own right (according to Mephi's definition).
2. If so, Dr. Boyd should say whether VPI is compatible with libertarian freedom. In other words, is it a viable option for Open Theists?
3. If so, Dr. Boyd should demonstrate that God's use of VPI does not fundamentally violate the governing structures as understood by Open theists, though it seems to do so at least temporarily.
Mephi should understand that even if Dr. Boyd affirms VPI, he will insist that this is a special instance of particular control or tight parameters on the wills of the authors and the authors are not responsible for what they could not have prevented.
Dr. Boyd would have to explain then what it means that the biblical writers often take credit for the writings themselves.
The conclusion should be:
1. Admit that Mephi is right and that VPI is an analogous situation (though not properly an "explanation") to other cases where some attempt to understand freedom and divine agency according to compatibilism. Though it may not have the explanatory power Dr. Boyd seeks because Dr. Boyd and open theists are not satisfied with compatibilism and this illustration does not reach beyond compatibilism.
2. Suggest that VPI can be understood in the libertarian worldview, but that it involves mor severe than usual limitations upon the freedom accessible to creatures.
3. Reject VPI and compatibilism with it (my recommendation, for what it's worth!).
The real bite of this project by Mephi, and the reason I originally commended it (and still do), is that many evangelicals DO hold to this theory of inspiration and IF they do, it should carry some tacit illustrative power for them as compatibilists or pose a real challenge if they are libertarians. If the latter is the case, I'd recommend they either convert to compatibilism or better, give up on VPI.
The lynchpin of the argument is the fact that the authors often claim responsibility for the books and yet we want to say that it is God's word. Hope this helps more than it hurts…
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/18/00 1:14 AM
Modes Comes Through
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brother Modes,
Knew I could count on ya. Thanks, bro.
Meph
PS: Doc, it's cool. I was just teasin with the "reeling" bit. I should have put a "LOL" in there or something, right? LOL
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
12/18/00 7:22 AM
RE: RE: RE: Hello, Doc?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice Referee job Modes. I'll play the game.
MODES: 1. [We need] for Dr. Boyd to tell Mephi whether or not Dr. Boyd believes that verbal plenary inspiration (VPI hereafter) is a viable view of Scriptural inspiration in its own right (according to Mephi's definition).
*** You know, the most fundamental problem I have with Meph's whole analogy thing is that you're trying to explain a mystery with a mystery. I'm not even sure what Verbal Plenary Inspiration means. People always distinguish it from "dictation theory," but I for the life of me have never been able to get clear on what the distinction amounts to.
*** In any event, I'm confident that God kept scriptural authors from saying what he didn't want them to say. To this extent their freedom was restricted. (Big deal. Freedom is always restricted). I'm not as confident that God regulated scriptural authors in such a way that every exact word was determined. I rather doubt it. It seems to me there's other ways of thinking about it that affirm just as strongly THAT scripture is inspired and even inerrant. e.g. God maybe inspired the concept, insured that their words (whatever they chose) expressed the concept and didn't convey falsity, but didn't insure exactly which words they would use.
*** So, do I affirm VPI? I affirm inerrancy, but not necessarily VPI. (And, as I said, I'm not entirely sure what VPI means, let alone entails... which, again, is why I don't find it helpful in "clarifying" as an analogy how causation is not transitive.)
Modes: 2. If so, Dr. Boyd should say whether VPI is compatible with libertarian freedom. In other words, is it a viable option for Open Theists?
*** I think an advocate of libertarian freedom COULD affirm VPI, but could not say that the scriptural authors experienced libertarian freedom AT THE SAME TIME as they experienced VPI. One could hold that God sort of "took over" when it came to writing scripture, though he "took over" in ways that were compatible with the agents established thinking and writing patterns. I don't see any good reason to believe this, however.
MOdes: 3. If so, Dr. Boyd should demonstrate that God's use of VPI does not fundamentally violate the governing structures as understood by Open theists, though it seems to do so at least temporarily.
*** See #2 above. If a person wanted to affirm VPI, they could hold that the scriptural authors exercised compatiblistic freedom in writing scritpure, though they have libertarian freedom in other areas. There's no necessary incongruity between this and Open Theism.
*** Having said all this, I again submit that this is NOT an analogy for compatibilism -- how one agent could cause another agent to do x "in such a way" that the second agent, but not the first agent, is responsible for x. An analogy has at least ONE KNOWN VARIABLE. God teaches us like a good teacher teaches her pupils, for example. It works because, but only because, we have experience of good teachers. To say "God controls people without being responsible for what people do like he controls the authors of scripture" does NOT work, for we don't know how he controls the authors of scripture. Besides, the moral issue of responsibility doesn't factor in here, and THIS is the thing in need of explanation.
My five year quest continues. Reformed folk out there, I call upon you. Give me an analogy -- some way I can meaningful call God "good" and not holding him responsible for all the evil in the world while believing that all the evil in the world is ordained by him. Give me an analogical explaination of the clause, "in such a way, " of the Reformed confessions!!!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/18/00 11:35 AM
Meph's Last Word on This (For a While)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Modes' wonderful framework...
Part I, Subsection 1
Doc:
"You know, the most fundamental problem I have with Meph's whole analogy thing is that you're trying to explain a mystery with a mystery"
Mephi:
Modes hit the nail on the head:
"Admit that Mephi is right and that VPI is an analogous situation (though NOT properly an "explanation") to other cases where some attempt to understand freedom and divine agency according to compatibilism." (emphasis mine"
He saw it, so I will assume that my statements were clear enough to see my intent. This whole thing was NOT to explain how divine sovereignty and human freedom work, necessarily. It was to posit an analogous situation that most evangelicals ALREADY ACCEPT and show the foolishness of affirming VPI and DENYING the possibility of predestination, as I understand it which may work by essentially the same paradigm.
Part 1, Subsection 2
Doc said:
To this extent their freedom was restricted. (Big deal. Freedom is always restricted). I'm not as confident that God regulated scriptural authors in such a way that every exact word was determined. I rather doubt it. It seems to me there's other ways of thinking about it that affirm just as strongly THAT scripture is inspired and even inerrant. e.g. God maybe inspired the concept, insured that their words (whatever they chose) expressed the concept and didn't convey falsity, but didn't insure exactly which words they would use.
Mephi:
John 10:33
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? (IMPORTANT) If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came-- and the Scripture cannot be broken-- what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?
Mark 12:35-37
While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." (IMPORTANT)' David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?" The large crowd listened to him with delight.
Galatians 3:16
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," (IMPORTANT) meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ.
It would seem from these accounts that the persons speaking seemed to make a LOT of emphasis on the grammatical issues in the Scriptures, as if EVERY WORD and its PLACEMENT was inspired and authoritative. It doesn't seem that the biblical authors merely thought that the THEMES of Scripture were divinely inspired, but the very words themselves. Hmmm...How do you account for this, Doc? Moreover, you and I (and the linguistic buffs around here KNOW that all it takes is one word, ONE misplacement to change the entire meaning of a sentence, and thereby, a concept. Hmmm...think of all that stuff that happened around John 1:1, whether Jesus was God or was A God and all that. Just wondering about these.
Part I, Subsection 3:
Doc said:
"So, do I affirm VPI? I affirm inerrancy, but not necessarily VPI. (And, as I said, I'm not entirely sure what VPI means, let alone entails..."
Mephi:
This is quite surprising. You're not sure what VPI means? hmmm... I tell you what. I posted the various depictions of inerrancy. Which one fits YOU?
Part II, Subsection 1:
Doc said:
"I think an advocate of libertarian freedom COULD affirm VPI, but could not say that the scriptural authors experienced libertarian freedom AT THE SAME TIME as they experienced VPI."
Mephi:
Now let's dissect the statement. In other words, an advocate of libertarian freedom would have to posit a God who does FORCE his will on given agents at least SOME times. Like Modes said:
"Suggest that VPI can be understood in the libertarian worldview, but that it involves more [sic] severe than usual limitations upon the freedom accessible to creatures."
Does this pose any problems for ANYONE else but me? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of an open view? Positing a God that truly DOES micromanage some things in the fullest sense of the word to get them done? Hmmm...
Part III, Subsection 2
Doc said:
"I again submit that this is NOT an analogy for compatibilism -- how one agent could cause another agent to do x "in such a way" that the second agent, but not the first agent, is responsible for x. An analogy has at least ONE KNOWN VARIABLE. God teaches us like a good teacher teaches her pupils, for example. It works because, but only because, we have experience of good teachers. To say "God controls people without being responsible for what people do like he controls the authors of scripture" does NOT work, for we don't know how he controls the authors of scripture."
Mephi:
I think you're missing the point of the analogy. Let me post this from the above:
"The feasibility of this as a possibility can only be denied if the verbal plenary view is rejected as improbable."
You said that there was NO WAY to render intelligible the idea that human being are responsible for things that GOD has predestined us to do, in any type of way. This goes back to the human agency vs divine sovereignty thing. MOST evangelicals at present believe the Verbal Plenary view of inspiration to be intelligible. The ONE known variable of which you speak is the EXPERIENCE of many evangelicals, Calvinist and Arminian, believing the VPI to be an intelligible articulation of how divine sovereignty and human agency can work together such that God AND the authors themselves are responsible for the writing of Scipture. To make a formal statement of the analogous relationship:
"Accepting human freedom working completely confluently with divine sovereignty is JUST LIKE accepting the verbal plenary view of inspiration."
Because many evangelicals experience that VPI is a viable view of inspiration, then they should have little problem struggling with the issue we are dealing with. We don't HAVE to know how it works. THAT would be an explanation. Not trying to merely give an analogy. Hope you see this.
Well, anyways...sorry that you didn't see how this was persuasive, Doc. I think Modes sees where I'm coming from though. I'll holla back in 2001, ok?
In the Spirit of Christmas and Wreckin' Shop in the New Year,
Mephi2K
PS: The Ware Thing...check it out...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
02/14/01 6:02 AM
Arise, My Creation...ARISE!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I'm posting here to bring this to the fore...
To Modes: It sure is a small world, now ain't it? LOL Holla at the missus for me, wouldja?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
02/14/01 3:43 PM
Arise, My Creation...ARISE!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph,
You finally make the connection??
Brandon
| | 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 |
|
|