 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 7:52 PM (GMT -6) |   | Mephi2K
11/01/00 1:21 AM
It's VOTING Time, Amigos!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Room,
As I read this I was thinking, "Can Things Really Be Any Clearer?" From the Christus Victor Question of the Week Page--"God’s “Over-knowledge” of the Future":
Dr. Boyd Statement 1:
"Unlike us, God is a being of infinite intelligence. His intelligence doesn’t get “spread thin” by attending to more than one possibility at a time. God can simultaneously consider a trillion possibilities as fully and completely as if he were only considering one of them."
Mephi's Comment:
Now, I think this is exactly what I've been saying. When we talk about omniscience, we are talking about something that strains our very imagination. God's intellectual abilities exceed ours by an incomparably vast amount. This coroborates what I say about God being able to predict events from the creative event to the end of time (if there is one). AND to say that God can't comprehend quantum events is certainly out of the question.
(NOTE: Please pay CLOSE attention to this part...VERY important!)
Dr Boyd Statement 2:
"In the Open View, God knew and perfectly anticipated every possible future story-line BEFORE CREATION. (emphasis mine) Since possibilities are eternal, and since God is omniscient, God knew every possible future decision every possible future person could ever possibly make. And because his intelligence is infinite, it was not “spent” by any one of these possibilities. He knew and anticipated EACH and EVERY (emphasis mine) of these possible future story-lines as thoroughly as if it were the only future story-line he had to consider. Thus, if God had only one future story-line to attend to, as the classical view holds, he wouldn’t know it any more thoroughly than he does each of the innumerable possible story-lines which the Open view postulates."
Mephi's Comment:
LOL This is so amazing to me. Dr. Boyd is feeding directly into my argument. I mean DIRECTLY. From my 10/30/00 8:25AM writing:
"I also believe that God's plan can be accurately described as the infinite range of possibilities of timelines that help comprise God's omniscience. This means that the divine intention to actualize one of those possible realities can be viewed as the primal "free choice" of God. With that choice, God made effectively certain (though not necessary) what would occur in reality."
Dr. Boyd says that before the creative event that ALL possibilities for timelines were open to God. (My infinite range of timelines) He also says that God is COMPLETELY omniscient with regards to possibility and actuality. But he doesn't seem to take the thought out to its full conclusion. He speaks like God acts in a piecemeal manner, just reacting to what humans do. But this doesn't logically follow from what Dr. Boyd says, now does it. Given what Boyd is saying, God had EXHAUSTIVE knowledge of every possible reality that could exist. God also knew what causes would lead to what effects in those realities. (Remember my Zosia thing?) Now couple this with God's COMPLETE omniscience of all actuality following the creative event and the implications of that found in my model. Taking all this into consideration, there is absolutely NO WAY that Dr. Boyd can say that by actualizing THIS reality, he did not choose against any other realities de facto. He also cannot say that God cannot exhaustively know the future. He's given us ALL the ingredients to say the opposite!
Dr. Boyd Statement 3:
"God doesn’t know less than the one story-line that shall come to pass, he knows more. Far from diminishing God’s foreknowledge, the Open View assumes that God over-knows the future!"
Mephi's Response:
Heh. This over-knowing the future before creation, combined with the omniscience of God exhaustively applied to all actuality and possibility sound a death knell for Open View Theism, it seems.
Dr. Boyd Statement 4:
"He is a God who inspires our trust, precisely because he is a God who doesn’t need to eternally foreknow all that SHALL take place in order to perfectly anticipate all that MAY take place."
Mephi's Response:
Perfectly anticipate? Perfect anticipation of all events from the beginning of time...and somehow this is NOT exhaustive foreknowledge???
Friends and Thinkers,
It is now that I am asking for a decision to be made. I want you to truly think about all the things you have seen in this discussion. The model, all the explanations, elaborations, interactions, etc. Next, I want you go actually GO to the Question of the Week page so that you can see Dr. Boyd's quotes for yourself. Lastly, come here again for my responses to some of those quotes and tie everything together. People, if there was ever any chance for me to become an Open View Theist (and believe me, there WAS a chance), it has now evaporated like so much water. I want you guys to holler at me and tell me what YOU think about all this. Should we dump Open View Theism as philosophically untenable or should be keep it on basic fideistic principle? I remind you of one of Christus Victor's main tenets of conviction:
1. Reason and Faith Intelligence and passion are compatible. Christianity should make rational sense and should be lived passionately.THE HEAD AND THE HEART WERE CREATED BY GOD TO WORK TOGETHER. (emphasis mine) The more rational sense a belief makes, the more passionately it can be embraced. The best argument for unbelief is incoherent theology.
As for me, I cannot hold to the philosophical and theological underpinnings of Open View Theism as coherent. Therefore, it's incoherency is the best argument for my unbelief in it. You may say different. As long as you are honest with what you believe the evidence says, hey....what can I say? So, let's vote. Thumbs UP or Thumbs DOWN? As you can see beside the title, I've already given mine. You be the judge.
Waiting on Pins and Needles,
Mephi2K
PS: I would like to make it clear that my stance is in no way a personal attack on Dr. Gregory Boyd. I genuinely believe that he a man of great intellectual acumen and wonderful character. His passion for Jesus is noteworthy and his compassion for people is quite admirable. As much as I respect him as a Christian minister and a human being, I must, of good conscience, stand my ground when I see what I perceive to be incoherent or inconsistent theologizing. I pray God's continuing blessing on Dr. Boyd, his family, and his church. I also pray that he understands my perspective, as well.
"Here I stand. I can do no other!" --Martin Luther
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
sparkleylight
11/01/00 9:02 AM
RE: It's VOTING Time, Amigos!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi2k, Thank you for the PS in your last post
I consider myself someone who 'seeks' the truth as a continuum. One thing I've found is that IF I provide a 'seeker' the open view as ONE school of thought,(as I have seen Dr. Boyd do in every reply), I may be opening a door to a relationship with Jesus that they couldn't find otherwise. I wonder, do you know of anyone who can't accept the fact that Jesus loves them because they have heard that God PREDESTINES them for the kind of life they have?
Have you considered that even though YOU can not make sense of it....it is so freeing for many?
Is Dr. Boyd in fact preaching CHRIST and is he primarily motivated by love? (This is not attempting to defend him, on a personal level, just echoing your PS.)
Once more, I must assert that I HAVE SEEN MANY COME TO CHRIST because open view Theology FINALLY makes God's plan plausible. Isn't our work on earth to 'set the captives free' and spread the 'good news'?
Mephi2k, I listen to Boyd,(and many many others), each time with a critical ear. I have not accepted open view Theology as my mainstay in all theology, however, I SEEK (continually) and hold out hope for the lost to be saved by the Truth in the Word.
So, before you cast your 'VOTE' could you answer my questions on a personal level? Do you know these kind of people? How do YOU answer them? What is your ministry? What motivates you? etc..... Thank you in advance,
sparkle
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
11/01/00 10:23 AM
Mephi Shares His Heart
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sparkle,
It's my confession time. I have given this a LOT of thought. I have many dialogues with theistic and atheistic agnostics, outright atheists, and people from all different kinds of faiths. I have done research on just about every major reason NOT to believe in Christianity, not just for apologetic reasons, but just for the enhancement of my OWN faith. (In my opinion, unless we are open and vunerable to the beliefs of others, we never truly know if our faith is really ours or if we have merely fallen into the pit of ideological certainty.) Along with this, I happen to hear a lot of stipulations of reliquishment upon which people would accept Jesus Christ as Lord. Some of these include:
1) the idea of eternal punishment
2) the idea of the Trinity
3) the idea of Jesus as God
4) God's omniscience or omnipotence (in ANY respect)
5) the whole "grace" thing. (Yes, some people actually LIKE the idea of earning salvation!)
6) the bodily ressurection of Jesus
7) the complete universality of the Body of Christ (There are some people who believe in the inherent inequality of humanity and will not surrender it, even for spirituality)
8) the idea of a God who would elect ONE people (Israel) out of so many, for any purpose or reason.
9) the ideas of a God who is so anal about sin that would sacrifice His innocent son for guilty persons
10) the personality of God
11) the sinfulness of human beings
Now, sparkle, these are just a FEW of the stipulations that I've heard from various individuals who've said "if Christianity were to relinquish X ( X being any one of the things listed above), then I would probably gladly become a Christian." I don't know about you, but a big pasttime of mine is moral and ethical theory. I consider myself to be a budding ethicist. And I've honestly thought to myself, in a very utilitarian manner: "Man, this could be it! Only ONE thing separates them from accepting God's love in Christ. Maybe God won't be too ticked if one 'necessary' truth is negated in order that He gets another lost sheep. Surely, a SOUL is worth more than trying to keep every jot and tittle of what I know to be truth intact." But then I thought about it. Well, how far would I go with this? What ELSE would I begin surrendering so that people could find the love of Christ? What would begin to separate me from the Gnostics that Paul so despised...or the saints who basically began to abuse God's grace that Paul had to deal with...or the vast amount of syncretists that are already packing our churches, here and abroad? It becomes a Pandora's Box that could never be shut once opened. I can't just on ad hoc principle say "Well, we go this far and NO further" with regard to theological and philosophical coherency.
The bottom line is that there IS a line that we cannot cross. If we put up a God that we KNOW isn't a true representation of the God we serve (for any reason), how is this different esssentially from idolatry? I personally don't think that it is. For us to preach a theological/philosophical position that we KNOW is incoherent merely for the sake of pragmatics is tantamount to utilitarianism most foul. I've gotten to the point like this. I will ask various open view theists, free will theists, annihilationists or whatever this question: "IF, and I'm just saying IF, what I'm saying is true, does that make God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit any LESS real or any LESS worthy of worship?" If the answer is "yes", then that's really saying a LOT about that person's faith, now isn't it?
What's really difficult about this situation is that I see Dr. Boyd's heart (and others like him) I see that they are NOT doing this for purely selfish reasons. They LOVE Jesus. They actually want to see more people come to Christ's love and this is how they feel it can be facilitated. They genuinely believe that this is a viable solution But I cannot help feeling that this is exploitation of some type. You and I both know that SOME people will not bother to deeply delve into the real theological or philosophical underpinnings of Open View Theism. They will merely look on a surface level, see that it FEELS right to them, and accept it.
"Whew! I knew that God wasn't behind that tragedy I had."
"Sigh. I knew that God couldn't have been behind my baby's death" etc, etc...
That's why every time I argue against Open View theism, it always, (and I mean ALWAYS) comes down to rhetorical statements about PRAGMATIC issues.
"Well, brother, don't you just think this is a better way to reach people for Christ. Isn't THAT what really counts?"
"The Open View is so comforting for many people. How can you just write that off?"
"Son, this helps people heal. That's what we care about. Pointing people to Jesus and helping them get healed."
Example from the Christus Victor website:
"The Open view has many pragmatic implications for believers, particularly regarding the problem of evil and the power of prayer."
I believe in human transformation and healing just like the next person. But I do not believe is should be held with a "by any means necessary" type stance. The reason that it always comes to pragmatics is because it cannot stand on its OWN theological/philosophical suppositions...and some people plain know that. It's like the Wizard of Oz thing when Dorothy finally got through all the preliminary stuff and got all the way to the Wizard's actual domain...only to find the Wizard was as big and bad as everyone thought he was. "I am the great Wizard...er..um...Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" Like Dorothy, we have to face up to the fact: the wizard has no real power backing him up, just LOTS of smoke, mirrors and hype!
Just so you don't think that this is merely a stuffy theologian talking, let me tell you about myself. I am a seminary student finishing up my Masters of Divinity. I am being called to a pastoral ministry as well as possibly being a professor someday. I also feel called to facilitate a bridge-building attempt with other denominations as well as loving outreach and communication with non-religious people and people of other faiths. As such, I constantly think of any and all PASTORAL and EVANGELISTIC implications of my theology and philosophy of life. So, i'm not an objective observer. I'm in it, just like any other minister.
What motivates me? My love for God and his calling on my life. How do I answer people in times of heartache and pain according to my theology? I tell them the truth. God is present in there situation RIGHT now, and He loves them. God's love for humanity was settled on the Cross. Though they can't understand why X happened to them, they can be certain that God does, and that God is there,willing and able to hear their cries of frustration, anger, and disillusionment...and He will be there to comfort them and help pick up the pieces after all that's over. They can be assured that, though I have no real answers as to why X happened, I and others like me will stand with them and be an "incarnational presence" witnessing to the love, faithfulness, and grace of Jesus Christ. See, I've come to realize that its not always the content of our faith that's the problem, but the methodology by which we share that faith and the praxis by which we live it out.
Well, I've gotta go. I hope this answers your questions. I understand the struggle (trust me), but I've still gotta give it a thumbs down!
Warmest regards,
Mephi2K
Note To Webmaster, Moderator, or Anyone in Charge:
I realize that Dr. Boyd has a terribly busy schedule, but I was wondering if he has any time available to personally comment on the discussion that's been taking place here. I figure surely if anyone can find the holes in my thinking, it would be him. If time doesn't allow, I wholeheartedly understand. If he does have some extra time to review the discussion in its entirety and comment, I (and possibly many others) would benefit greatly from his personal insight. Just putting a bug in the ear, as it were. Thanks!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
11/01/00 1:10 PM
Hold your horses Amigo!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi, thanks for sharing your sincere heart with us as well as your formidable mind.
I agree that your system of belief in which God ultimately actualizes (but doesn't cause--I'm not sure I follow this distinction but I will grant it) all reality is quite consistent--maybe even the most consistent (aside from the familiar logical contradictions like the compatability of free will and determinism and that pesky little problem of evil).
Several times in your postings you cite Greg's conviction about the convergence of the heart and mind concerning truth. But you admit that the view you advocate confounds your own heart and mind: "Do I get any bit of satisfaction in my view that God, for whatever reason, chose to actualize a reality where a little girl's eye got put out. Certainly not. I don't understand it. At all."
You're not alone. Some people may successfully reconcile their conviction that God actualized the reality of their child's torture for a mysterious higher purpose, but others will go crazy trying. Some people may successfully comfort their hearts with the conviction that God loves their little girl even though he actualized the reality of her torture, but other hearts will be crushed and bitter.
How are we to live such a belief? How do such convictions translate into actions? Why does (say) pray matter, other than that fact that God says it does? What about evil?????? And finally, how do you reconcile your view with Jesus' unequivocal revolt against evil as contrary to--rather than according to--God's will? This is not merely a matter of pragmatism, but one of fidelity to God's revelation via the scriptures and ultimately his incarnation.
Jesus says, "if you have seen me you have seen the Father." The Bible says over and over again, and Jesus clearly shows us that God is grieved by evil, not glorfied by it. Jesus did not regard evil as a puzzle to be solved, but rather a presence that did not belong, and he responded accordingly by rebuking oppressors (especially the religious ones), casting out demons, calming the storm, healing the sick, and empowering the poor and oppressed whenever he encountered this presence in his creation. When Christian systems of belief are rightly lived, they should look like this. I think the open view is an important part of a system that succeeds in this.
I hope that I have not misunderstood you too badly along the way, or insulted you by getting preachy. This was not my intention. I have tremendous respect for you almost to the point of intimidation, so go easy on me, ok Amigo?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
trosie
11/01/00 1:51 PM
RE: It's VOTING Time, Amigos!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mephi2K:
I first want to say thank you for your insights in this area. I appreciate your passion in the area of God's omniscience. I have found your dialogue with the many others to be intriguing!
I have been thinking about what you have been saying and I want to throw in my two cents. I absolutely believe that God does know, with ALMOST 100% certainty, what decision we will make. He knows us better than we know ourselves. He knows what motivates us, what temptations can bait us,... He often times warns people ahead of time what consequence shall await them if they go a certain way. Now, I want to get to the story about Adam and Eve. He knew them so thoroughly that He knew where Satan could snare them. He warned them to not eat from the tree of knowledge because He knew that this would be an area of weakness for them. His knowing them so thoroughly and His knowing the ramifications of eating from the tree shows His omniscience. However, I maintain that if He in fact knew absolutely that they would indeed eat from this tree, then He was setting them up for their first sin. In this case, His ordering them not to eat from the tree while at the same time knowing for certain that they would disobey Him would have the appearance of looking as if He brought on the fall of man. This is not the character of God that I find depicted in the bible, however. Why would He tell Adam and Eve to not do something that He already knew for certain that they would do? I believe He knew that they might give into the temptation that Satan would be throwing at them, (because of how completely He knew all about them), but He was hoping that they wouldn't.
I agree with Dr. Boyd. God knows the many possibilities and the outcomes that will result from each of them, (like not eating from the tree will bring life; eating from it will mean spiritual death.) I believe that God knows the major theme of life. He knows the BIG picture. What I do not understand is WHY God cannot know the many possibilities and yet not be 100% certain of the actual decision that we will make? God COULD orchestrate the whole scheme of life, and every event therein, but decides not want to. He created people in His image to FREELY choose to love and accept Him.
I find this open view is so liberating! I find more power in prayer because I feel that my prayer can have an impact on the outcome. I know that God is ultimately in control, (and can step in anytime He wants to), but surrenders this control somewhat to us by giving us the freedom to choose. God IS NOT behind the evil in this world -- Satan is. God hopes for good but knows that we might choose bad, (just like with Adam and Eve.) I look forward to your response to this!
Blessings!
trosie
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
11/01/00 4:53 PM
RE: Don't Proclaim "Checkmate" just yet!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is Greg Boyd. I'm really enjoying the calibar of discussion on the discussion board so far. Keep it up. Good minds with kind hearts sharing views.
I've been asked to step into the discussion (which I won't do often) to respond to Mephi's "call to a vote." It's clear Mephi is confident he has me checkmated in his reply to my essay "God Over-Knows the Future." REading Mephi's contributions on the Board, its clear Mephi is a learned and highly intelligent participant. He makes a lot of good points. But I'm not quite ready to concede checkmate -- or even to sacrifice my bishop -- just yet.
Here's the gist of Mephi's argument. Mephi first correctly notes that I affirm that God exhaustively knows all possibilities (since possibilities are eternal, and God is omniscient) [see Question of the Week]. Second, Mephi draws some conclusions from this. In his own words. "Now couple this [exhaustive knowledge of possibilities] with God's COMPLETE omniscience of all actuality following the creative event and the implications of that found in my model...[and] there is NO WAY that Dr. Boyd can say that by actualizing THIS reality, he did not choose against any other realities de factor. He also cannot say that God cannot exhaustively know the future. He's given us ALL the ingredients to say the opposite."
Now, IF I accepted "the implications of [God's knowledge of actuality] found in [his] model," Mephi's argument against me would stand. So far as I can tell (from previous writings) Mephi believes that if God knows all causes he must know all effects throughout time. Hence, if I concede God knows all present actuality, and all possible effects that come from that actuality, then on his "model" I must concede that God knows all future actuality. But I don't accept Mephi's model. It's a deterministic modfel. I believe that humans and angels have free will, which means that previous causes can INFLUENCE but not EXHAUSTIVELY DETERMINE their free decisions. Hence, God can know all future possibilties, and God can know all present actuality and yet NOT know all future actuality -- for this has been, to some extent, left up for free agents to decide.
To make the same point from a different direction. Mephi assumes that God had it in his power to unilaterally actualize any of the infinite possible worlds he knew of before creation. God choose to actualize THIS one from among all the possibilities. This perspective is coherent, so long as you're not an Open Theist who believes in free will. If God chooses to give agents free will, then HIS WILL isn't the ONLY will that decides which of the possible worlds get actualized. God chooses to actualize a world in which free agents have say-so, but then WE to some extent decide which possibilities will be actualized by our decisions within the parameters set by God. The indefinite possibilities become definite actualities only when WE choose them. Hence God knows them as indefinite possibilities before we choose them, and then as definite actualies when we choose them.
Unless I'm mistaken, there's nothing incoherent in this view. Conversely, with all due respect, I suspect there IS something incoherent in Mephi's view that God can unilaterally decide which possible world will be actualized -- IF he or she also wants to affirm that free agents have morally responsible freedom.
I wouldn't vote yet, if I were you. I suspect Mephi will have a good reply. I encourage others to join in the dialogue.
Blessings! Keep thinking!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
11/01/00 10:08 PM
Dare I Say "Check"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Boyd:
Sir, it is truly an honor it is for me to discuss this with you. I hold you in the highest regard as a minister and a thinker. I truly appreciate you taking time out of your hectic schedule to answer to the rambling thoughts of a fledgling theologian. You have my ardent gratitude, sir! I hate to continue this assault against your system, sir, but conscience will not allow me to do otherwise. Thus, let me do so with clarity of mind and openness of heart.
THE ISSUES
As I perceive it, your main three things that are allowing you to hold to your view are these:
1) the so-called existence of "free will"
2) the non-determinism that results from free will
3) the philosophically problematic "necessary outworking" that results from determinism
I will attempt to peel these away, sir. Remember, it's all in love.
ON FREE WILL
Dr. Boyd:
"I believe that humans and angels have free will, which means that previous causes can INFLUENCE but not EXHAUSTIVELY DETERMINE their free decisions."
"This perspective is coherent, so long as you're not an Open Theist who believes in free will."
Mephi Responds:
Upon what can a view of free will logically be maintained? If free will is seen as life outside of any determinism, it CANNOT be maintained, as I will further demonstrate later. I have given a lot of evidence that is consistent with the Open View cosmology and notion of God that persuasively argues against the idea of "free will" and FOR the idea of self-efficacy and human agency. (The reader is especially encouraged to review the subject of God's omniscience with regard to quantum events that is seen in the earlier writings. The reader is also encouraged to read about the psychological absurdity of "free will" in the earlier writings)
Conclusion: Unless CLEAR evidence that is consistent with Open View Theism's cosmological and theological presuppositions is forthcoming, the "free will" concept must be considered refuted.
ON DETERMINISM
Dr Boyd says:
"But I don't accept Mephi's model. It's a deterministic model. [sic]"
Mephi Responds:
Yes. My model is deterministic and unashamedly so. Why? Because of what determinism IS. Determinism is merely the tenet that every event has its determining conditions in its immediate antecedents. That's ALL. Determinism IS consistent with a belief in the efficacy of the human will. Then why the problem? Because Dr. Boyd is confusing determinism with what he terms "necessary outworking". They are NOT the same animal, though. Here's a description of something called soft determinism or psychical determinism. This is a psychological term. (PLEASE note this well!)
In soft determinism, cause and effect still apply, but human will
can act as an INTERMEDIARY - making deliberation over limited options possible. This compromise between hard determinism (which is strict behaviorism) and free will is accepted by Albert Bandura (Remember how I mentioned his name before?) In Soft Determinism, cognitions, emotions, sensations, perceptions, all mental events either partially or completely determine events. This viewpoint also allows for personal responsibility because choice amongst determined paths exists.
This is what I've been trying to say over and over again! The "self-determining human being" thing falls WITHIN determinism!! It's not escaping causality at all. And that's why God can know the future EXHAUSTIVELY. Our cognitions, emotions, and thoughts are part of the CAUSES/EFFECTS that God uses in his predicting power.
(Digression: I think that is the greatest irony. The term "self-determining" assumes self-efficacy and the existence of some type of determinism. But Open View Theists argue AGAINST deterministic systems. heh...)
Our decisions are part of God's predictive realm. I have affirmed that we have the power of agency, meaning that human actions and thoughts DO make things happen and thus we make our own future. That has never been disputed. What I've been saying is that, due to God's omniscience and corresponding predictive ability, these power of agency choices that we make have ALWAYS been in the mind of God, and were predicted by Him, from the intial creative event. (The reader is encouraged to review the section about God's predictions being like money-in-the bank FACT)
Conclusion: Determinism is a fact of human existence. Human agency and self-efficacy are compatible with determinism. Therefore, my model is very appropriate and SHOULD be accepted, on those bases. Unless good reason can be given to show how determinism does NOT exist in human experience, any argumentation against determinism is considered refuted.
ON NECESSARY OUTWORKINGS
This was originally to Luther, by Dr. Boyd:
"God's exhaustive knowledge of you in the present only entails God's exhaustive knowledge of you in the future IF all you shall be in the future is a necessary outworking of all you are in the present. Since your present was once your past's future, who you are now is the necessary consequence of who you were in the past. Ultimately it must all go back to you as a newly fertilized zygote... and then back further still. Hence, all you have been, are now, and ever shall be is the necessary outworking of past causes. Hence you cannot be said to be SELF-DETERMINING for who you are. Conversely, if you believe that you have had some say-so in who you are, you must believe that who you are was not determined by your past."
Mephi Responds:
Let me dissect this, just a bit. I keep making mention of the phrase "certain, but NOT necessary" This statement by Dr. Boyd is why I do so. What is being said here assumes only ONE possible effect per set of causes. But I keep saying that this is not the case. There are numerous effects per set of causes. (Remember the lab mouse thing) Let's put this in context of what Dr. Boyd is saying here. Is your present built on your past? Yes. Is your present a NECESSARY consequence of your past, meaning a stream of necessary causation going all the way back to a zygote? No way. The "self-determining" thing, as I have stated before, is nothing more than the concept of agency WITHIN the context of determinism. The decisions that you made were your decisions that influenced things that happened in your life. But these things happened in a causal relationship that has produced your present. (Remember, without causality, there can be NO self-efficacy or human agency). Let's go deeper...
Dr. Boyd:
"God's exhaustive knowledge of you in the present only entails God's exhaustive knowledge of you in the future IF all you shall be in the future is a necessary outworking of all you are in the present."
With all due respect, sir, this is patently incorrect. Something doesn't have to be a necessary outworking to be predicted or predictable. I bring in the terminology of John Stuart Mill and his Methods of Induction. There are "sufficient causes" and "necessary causes" Something is a sufficient cause of X when it has the ability to produce X, but X CAN be produced without it. Something is a necessary cause of X when X CANNOT, in any way, be produced without it. Scientific study shows that, in establishing links of correlation and causality, there are interactions of both sufficient AND necessary causes. However, it seems that you only posit necessary causation when speaking of exhaustive knowledge of the future. This isn't really fair, now is it, sir? But I think I know why it's done. (not deceptively, of course) It's done because once one posits that exhaustive foreknowledge of the future incorporates both necessary AND sufficient causation, the "necessary outworking" argument falls really hard and fast.
Conclusion: As sufficient AND necessary causation appears in determinism (which is allowable), the "necessary outworking" argument is very much refuted!
No disrespect intended, sir...but I believe I have you in "check" There's not too many of your pieces left on the board. Your move.
With warmest regards and gratitude,
Mephi2K
PS: ANYONE here can answer this post, not just Dr. Boyd. Please give your input. Remember, we still have a vote going on.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
11/01/00 10:15 PM
Mephi's View of Existence...and stuff...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Trosie,
Thanks for the reply Ghost-Dog-Girl, if you don't mind, this post will reply to you somewhat as well.
With regard to Adam and Eve, let's go back to the 2nd scenario of my lab mouse thing. Knowing what I know about that mouse and it's uncontrollable urge for limburger cheese, does it make any sense whatsoever to "hope against hope" that the mouse will defy the overwhelming odds and go another way, when all the evidence points to the notion that the mouse WILL go for the cheese? Not really. But isn't that just what we're saying here? We are saying that even though all the evidence of God's omniscience (before and after the creative event) pointed to the fall taking place, God still "hoped against hope" that it wouldn't. Remember, because of God's knowledge of all possible realities before creation, He SAW this coming. No way around that. Moreover, He KNEW how great the odds were of Eve falling into the temptation that the serpent brought forth. So, in the midst of all this, are we really going to say that God was shocked and dismayed at the fact that his infinitely formidable predictive powers were indeed correct? It just doesn't add up, in my opinion.
Trosie said:
"God IS NOT behind the evil in this world -- Satan is."
Mephi's Response:
My view of God's overarching plan for His creation is best termed "redemptive history." Redemptive history is the panoramic view of all existence in general, and human history in particular, in which God has actualized a reality that would be conducive to His progressive self-revelation to creation. This reality takes the form of a redemptive plan to reconcile all things under his ultimate and universally recognized control after a time of misused delegated authority and cosmic rebellion. The instigator of the rebellion is the Satan (adversary). The apex of the creative event and delegated authority figure is humanity. Lastly, the climax of the redemptive history is Jesus Christ, the culmination of God's progressive revelation to mankind as well as the means of the salvific experience. God actualized this timeline, according to his own will, fully and exhaustively aware of all the consequences that would emerge (sin, death, etc.), but also knowing what tremendous reconciliation and exaltation would exist at the consummation of his plan.
As this view shows, yes, God CAN be seen as being ultimately behind evil, if indirectly. In the movie, Mission Impossible 2, a very interesting statement was made...
"One cannot have a hero without a villain."
As I thought about it, it made perfect sense! Heroism literally lacks all meaning without the context of SOME kind of villainy. The entire reason we appreciate love is because of what we know hate can do. Altruism can only come forth where SACRIFICE and loss are genuine possibilities. Like Frederick Douglass said:
"Without STRUGGLE (emphasis mine), there is no progress."
Or let's look at it from the self-revelation perspective. How could we know God as a healer if we didn't need healing? How could we know God as a Saviour if we never needed saving? How could we know God as the purveyor of grace if grace were never necessary? Here's the biggie. How could we know God as being good, just and righteous if there was no UNrighteousness and evil with which to contrast these wonderful characteristics? The Bible shows God to be one who likes to reveal Himself in many different fashions. God wanted to reveal Himself in all these aspects and more. So He actualized a reality that enabled Him to do so, in the way HE saw fit. This naturally involved the emergence of a "villain", our Satan. Now, remember how Open View theists, including Dr. Boyd, always remind us that the battle between God and evil is NOT a equal dualism. It's always been rigged from the jump. I agree with this thought wholeheartedly and I take the next logical step about HOW that all comes about. God has actualized a reality where His forces are fighting evil and Satan in a fixed fight...and we are to join in that fight. That's one reason why I like Dr. Boyd's concept of warfare so much. I really DO dig it!
What Jesus reveals to us IS the heart of God's self-revelation. How God acts and wants us to act and be. I agree with Ghost-Dog-Girl in her statement:
"Jesus did not regard evil as a puzzle to be solved, but rather a presence that did not belong, and he responded accordingly by rebuking oppressors (especially the religious ones), casting out demons, calming the storm, healing the sick, and empowering the poor and oppressed whenever he encountered this presence in his creation. When Christian systems of belief are rightly lived, they should look like this."
If I may simplify things, to me God has erected a big obstacle course called "life" That God knows this course exhaustively is pretty much irrelevent. In this course, we are to work for good and oppose the evil. Jesus is the epiphany of God, as it were, that gives us not only the perfect model, but also the perfect MEANS through which to oppose the cosmic mutiny. We are to use our power of choice to work for against Satan and recognize God's supreme rule, according to my view of redemptive history. What does this show you? There IS a plan. A plan that works for the ultimate glorification of God, the chief of all "goods" A reality that, like a great painting, has a certain amount of light AND shadow in order to make a masterpiece.
Trosie said:
"I know that God is ultimately in control, (and can step in anytime He wants to), but surrenders this control somewhat to us by giving us the freedom to choose."
Mephi's Response:
I've already discussed how our freedom to choose is not compromised by the fact of God's foreknowledge in some of the earlier writings. Also, what is really wished is not the relinquishment of "control" so much as the relinquishment of God's exhaustive foreknowledge. But as we've seen, to do that you absolutely MUST say that God is NOT omniscient.
I hope this has been a sufficient response for you. Thank you for being so open and honest with us. You've been a really great participant
Warmest regards,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
sparkleylight
11/02/00 11:09 PM
RE: Mephi Shares His Heart
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi,
Thank you for your prompt reply, and for affirming your position as my brother in Christ. It is easier for me to hear your head...when I know where your heart is
Could you answer a few more questions as to your position?
1) What is it that an open view Theist would want someone to relinquish?
Omniscient means all knowing, having total knowledge, and knowing everything...If this is correct then why can it NOT ALSO mean knowing everything that IS TO BE KNOWN? etc..
I can understand your examples of the proverbial 'X'....as I think we all can, however, I know not one open view theist that is trying to subtract from any area of Christendom. In my opinion it is quite the contrary, by ADDING the UNDERSTANDING of one's positional freedom in Christ.....I hold, that a Chrisitian can receive FULLNESS and WHOLENESS through open view Theism.
2) What 'necessary truth' are you implying is negated in open view Theology?
I can see, as I move further down your message, (skipping the "jot and tittle" comment, out of knowledge that we both can save it for the JW's and people who MISTRANSLATE the inerrant Word of God),
you question if God would be less worthy of worship, or less real??
I would have to tell you emphatically that the Triune God of open view Theism is indeed a confident and loving God who has no fear in allowing freedom to love, or freedom to hate....freedom for good and freedom for evil...This God who loves us enough to CHOOSE not to force us or control us like robots (even though He has power to do so) is entirely to be praised!!!!!!
Lastly, I wonder if you can say the same .."if your idea of God is that He predestined the account in the garden (that Trosie just posted), wouldn't THAT make Him less worthy to be praised????
Would He be "less real" as a God, and more real as both Good and evil? Could you give a lucid explaination of why looking at it that way....is better?
Your patience is appreciated....
sparkle
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
11/02/00 4:37 AM
RE: RE: Mephi Shares His Heart
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sparkle,
No problem.
1)"What is it that an open view theist would want someone to relinquish?"
Mephi's Response:
To me, the logical implications of God's omniscience, under Open View Theism's own presupps. The only thing that really defends it is the notion of "free will" and a corresponding view of indeterminism, two concepts of which are on VERY shaky ground at best. (See my reply to Dr. Boyd) I'd have to relinquish something I know to be true for the sake of pragmatics.
2) "What 'necessary truth' are you implying is negated in open view Theology?"
Mephi's response:
Again, this would be God's omniscience. Bottom line: One can't have the cake and eat it all too. I would be doing myself a great disservice if, after doing all this contemplating and research, I KNOW the fallacies of the Open View and still try to propound it. Each truth has its necessary corrollaries. Examples: The divinity of Christ IMPLIES him having, in some way, a divine nature. The bodily resurrection IMPLIES that Jesus has "location", wherever that location may be. The divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit IMPLIES that, somehow, all those persons are God. All of these examples take a Scripturally attested truth and logically extrapolates from them. The same thing can be done with omniscience, as open view theism describes the term. And just like a person can NOT deny Jesus' divinity while at the same time affirming his lack of divine nature, so can a person NOT deny exhaustive foreknowledge without denying (or vastly qualifying) omniscience. Ask yourself this: Does the Heisenburg "Uncertainty Principle" (which was mentioned in an earlier writing) apply to God? In other words, does omniscience mean that God DOES know the location AND the velocity of a particle at the quantum level AT the same time? If we say, "yes" to this, then certain things follow, namely that indeterminism and all that jazz CANNOT be true for God. If we say "no", then God's omniscience is qualified to the point of non-existence. Why? Because if God's omniscience is about ALL things actual, then that includes quantum events. To say, then, that God cannot know quantum events means that God cannnot comprehend something that is ACTUAL, which tacitly negates what Open View Theism says about God's omniscience. Again, we cannot have the cake and eat it too.
3A) Lastly, I wonder if you can say the same .."if your idea of God is that He predestined the account in the garden (that Trosie just posted), wouldn't THAT make Him less worthy to be praised????
Mephi:
Nope. Not at all. He's still creator and ruler of the universe. Jesus is still Lord. Predestination doesn't change those things in the least. And that's what matters. I'd cite Romans 9 here.
18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'"
21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
Now, I'm not going to get into all the exegetical furor that goes on around these verses, but notice something. What's the bottom line, it seems, in Paul's mind? To me, he's echoing the very wise notion of The Rock, the wrestler from WWF Smackdown:
"It...doesn't...MATTER...what you think, Jabroni!"
Also, with the book of Job. What does our eloquent, loving God want Job to know? The main thing appears to be this:
"Job, shut up yer whining. I know what I'm doing. You ain't gotta know JACK but the fact that I'm God and you're not!" (I'm making it poignant, but it's nonetheless true.)
I don't know why we human beings (especially Americans) must conceptually insist that the Kingdom of God is some type of democracy at its core when, in all likelihood, it's not one. Sure, we can come boldly to the throne of grace and petition God. And sure, we are all equal to each other in Christ. And sure, God is loving and caring. But the fact still remains God's rulership over us is ABSOLUTE. We can ask questions but He is not obligated to answer them. We can pray but He is not obligated to give is exactly what we want. We may think things are unfair, but He is not obligated to give us complete understanding. He is God. Let Him BE God, is what I say.
I tell people: "Do you realize what you are saying when you say, for whatever reason, 'I don't think that God is worthy of worship'? Don't you realize that THAT sentiment, my friend, is EXACTLY that of the chief insurrectionist, the Satan?" I mean, have you ever thought about it? There HAD to be some reason why Satan decided to rebel. Now, we try to make it all pat saying that Satan was SO self-absorbed that he lost sight of God's true love and beauty. BUT...what if Satan just said one day:
"You know what? I don't like the way God's running things. I mean, if I were God, even I'd be a better ruler in some regard. I can't believe that God is making some of the decisions he's making. MAYBE God isn't that great after all."
Sparkle, that's ALL it takes. Rebellion against the absolute authority of God. Oh, yeah, some people try to gloss it over with "Well, I just can't serve a God who would predestine all things. I just can't. My conscience won't let me." I am like "Well, WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE?" Honestly! Nothing more than rebellion.
True story. Once in the death camps of Auchwitz, a group of Jews gathered in one of the cells. The came together to put God on trial for what was happening to the Jewish people. After much deliberation, they came to the conclusion that God had not fulfilled his part of the bargain and that He was guilty of betraying His people. Do you know what the sentence was? From that day forward, they refused to believe in Him. (This was not at all uncommon. Read Elie Wiesel's "Night" Now this just tripped me out. What I instantly saw was the sentencing. How in the world can WE, mere human beings, "punish" God? ONLY by rebellion and straight up unbelief. But does that change the fact that God IS? Heck, no. Does that make our situations any better? Heck, no. Bottom line: The only two avenues that can come out of questioning God in such a manner: more trust in God despite the circumstances or straight up unbelief and/or rebellion. Plain and simple. The same applies here. If someone is NOT going to worship God just because predestination is true, how is that NOT straight up rebellion just like that group of Jews showed in Auchwitz? It's essentially the same phenomenon. Putting our ideas of what reality SHOULD be like over what God has declared/allowed to be.
(NOTE: If it seems that I am a bit polemical here, I apologize. There is NO harmful intention, I assure you. It's just that I am an VERY theocentric believer and preacher, and unashamedly so. I believe that it's God's way (whatever that may be) or the highway. No middle ground. God works with us because he CHOOSES to do so, in His grace. Not because we are so inherently important. Incidentally, Paul is my favorite biblical character because of his theocentricity...and Romans 9 happens to be one of my favorite passages. )
3B) Would He be "less real" as a God, and more real as both Good and evil?
Mephi:
Nope. But the theology about God would be MUCH, MUCH more logically coherent, in my opinion.
3C) Could you give a lucid explaination of why looking at it that way....is better?
Mephi:
Sure, I can. With theology, there is ALWAYS going to be an element of mystery. However, we owe it to ourselves to take our implications from Scriptural truth as FAR as we can before pulling what I dub "the mystery card." I cite Millard Erickson (I'm sure that Dr. Boyd knows him well) from his "Christian Theology", page 385:
"In the final analysis, the exact relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom is necessarily a mystery. It is important, however, not to invoke "mystery" prematurely. We MUST go as far as we can with our human reasoning and understanding BEFORE we label something as mystery." (emphases mine)
To me, not enough people do this. Why? Because they don't want the full implications of the thoughts. It's easier to stop short and pull out the "mystery card" to answer all the questions...and some people do that. I find that tantamount to sticking one's head in the sand. SURELY, many Open View Theists would agree with me there, including Dr. Boyd. The whole reason OV is here in the first place is because some people weren't willing to put up with the "divine mystery" that surrounded the Classical view's explanation of things and it's incessant propensity to pull the "mystery card" to silence all dissention. It's for this reason I think that Open View theists, when presented with MORE evidence, should be the first people to examine it in the light of reason and experience, unlike many Classicalists. It seems to be one of their stronger points.
I hope this answers some of your questions. Again, I hope that none of this, including the 3A question, has offended you. You've been very patient with me, as well, and I love you with the love of Christ.
Warmest regards,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
11/02/00 6:55 AM
RE: Dare I Say "Check"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mephi. You're quite the night owl, it seems. I'm thinking a security guard or something. Anyway, on to the discussion!
In my view, you most certainly do NOT have Boyd in "check." In fact, you've changed to another chess game! Look, in "It's voting time..." you alleged Boyd had an internal inconsistency in his view, as expressed in his essay "God's Over-Knowledge of the Future." He convincingly answered you, showing your allegation was valid only if you presuppose your own deterministic view of freedom -- which he obviously does not, and which makes your argument viciously circular. You then came back ("Dare I say check"and repeated your previous arguments against freedom and for determinism, claiming we still need to vote. But THIS isn't the question you asked us to vote on. It's not the chess game you and Boyd were playing. We were supposed to vote on whether Boyd's is inconsistent or not -- that is, whether you're right that given Boyd's views on God's "over-knowledge" of the future, he SHOULD affirm the classical view of God's foreknowledge. Now, regarding your arguments against freedom, these have all been addressed by philosophical defenders of libertarian freedom. REad especially Taylor's stuff on "agency theory." Plus, You never answered my critique of you several days ago that YOU attribute libertarian freedom to God while claiming it is unintelligible when applied to humans. THIS seems inconsistent. Beso.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
11/02/00 8:17 AM
RE: RE: Dare I Say "Check"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Beso,
Now...what's the phrase? Ah, yes...WHOA, Kemosabe! Let's deal with this a statement at a time...
Beso said:
"Look, in "It's voting time..." you alleged Boyd had an internal inconsistency in his view, as expressed in his essay "God's Over-Knowledge of the Future." He convincingly answered you, showing your allegation was valid only if you presuppose your own deterministic view of freedom -- which he obviously does not, and which makes your argument viciously circular."
Mephi's Reply:
I did say that there was inconsistency in his view. What was that inconsistency? It was this: Given the cosmological and theological suppositions of OVT, and the corresponding implications of omniscience, God HAS to know all things in the future exhaustively. Dr. Boyd said that it didn't apply because he didn't buy the deterministic view. But as I had shown in my retort, there is NO way around determinism. AT ALL. As a matter of fact, the cosmological and theological suppositions of OVT and the corresponding implication of omniscience CLEARLY show this. It would have been one thing if I would have merely tried to arbitrarily place Dr. Boyd in my worldview. But that isn't what I've done, now is it? I've shown him that a libertarian worldview with regard to "free will" is tacitly IMPLAUSIBLE, given his OWN cosmology. So, no. My argument isn't circular, because my starting point is the starting point of OVT
Beso said:
"You then came back ("Dare I say check"and repeated your previous arguments against freedom and for determinism, claiming we still need to vote. But THIS isn't the question you asked us to vote on. It's not the chess game you and Boyd were playing. We were supposed to vote on whether Boyd's is inconsistent or not -- that is, whether you're right that given Boyd's views on God's "over-knowledge" of the future, he SHOULD affirm the classical view of God's foreknowledge."
Mephi's Reply:
First of all, what is all this stuff about a classical view? First Modes, now you. I clearly laid out the ontological presuppositions which stated a God IN time that experiences time sequentially. I assure you, this is NOT the classical view. So, this has nothing to do with going back to a "Classical" view. Second, from my voting thing:
"Should we dump Open View Theism as philosophically untenable or should be keep it on basic fideistic principle?"
"As for me, I cannot hold to the philosophical and theological underpinnings of Open View Theism as coherent. Therefore, it's incoherency is the best argument for my unbelief in it. You may say different. As long as you are honest with what you believe the EVIDENCE says, hey....what can I say?" (emphasis mine)
I asked you to vote on the philsophical TENABILITY of OVT, given the evidence I've presented. The fallaciousness of "free will", and the cogent arguments FOR agency, self-efficacy, and determinism make up some of that evidence. So, how have I switched horses in midstream, as it were?
Beso said:
"Now, regarding your arguments against freedom, these have all been addressed by philosophical defenders of libertarian freedom."
Mephi's Reply:
I have not read Taylor. But I'm going to assume you've read all of my response to Dr. Boyd. I challenge ANY agency theorist on this: Illustrate to me how agency can exist without determinism. Tom Morris, world-reknown philospher who taught for many years at Notre Dame with Alvin Plantiga, happens to advocate the VERY agency theory that you are talking about. What does HE say about agency theory? First of all, the agency theory is an ALTERNATIVE to indeterminacy. Philosophically, it doesn't work for human beings (Didn't I say that in my response to Dr. Boyd?) These quotes are from "Philosophy For Dummies" by Tom Morris. This will be some extensive quoting so bear with me:
Page 145:
"According to the agency theorist, a free act is an act caused by an agent, where an agent is understood to be a person, or intelligent doer, possessing the capacity of volition. It isn't an event without a cause. And it isn't an event caused by an inner state. It is caused by an agent."
Page 146
"But the agency theorist insists, there is another form of causation even more intimately known to us. WE MAKE THINGS HAPPEN. We cause things. We set things in motion..." (emphasis mine)
"We initiate new causal chains for which we have responsibility."
"Agent theorists point out that even before we understand event-causation, we understand agent-causation. We know what it is for people to do things, (((((((((however unable we may be to analyze that metaphysically (in terms of the underlying mechanisms of what philosophers call being))))))))))) (emphasis mine). And here is a philosophical bonus: If not all causes are events---if some causes are people--then a commitment to UC(a) [talking about Universal Causation] need not lead us into believing such things as that every little event that ever happens has had infinitely many causes...Agents can initiate new causal chains."
Now, let's get down! What have I said in my previous writings?
From "Dare I say Check":
"I have affirmed that we have the power of agency, meaning that human actions and thoughts DO make things happen and thus we make our own future. That has never been disputed."
"In Soft Determinism, cognitions, emotions, sensations, perceptions, all mental events either partially or completely determine events. This viewpoint also allows for personal responsibility because choice amongst determined paths exists."
From my 10/29/00 8:59 PM response to YOU, beso:
"What has been described in P1[self-determination] seems to me to be the concept of agency or, as Bandura would call it, "self-efficacy" Self-efficacy and "free will" are two completely different concepts. People that hold to EDF can and do believe in self-efficacy and human agency."
From my 10/30/00 8:25 AM response to YOU, beso:
"You are absolutely right. I don't believe that humans can possess "free will", in the strictest sense of the term. What I DO believe humans have is 1)the power of volition and 2)agency. What does this mean? It means that human beings CAN make choices by will, though those choices have NECESSARY constraints (i.e. past experiences, dispositions, internal motivation, physical limitation, etc.) This is the power of volition. Human beings also CAN make efficacious actions on their own behalf that does affect and "create", as it were, there future. It should be noted that this is a far cry from the philosophical notion of fatalism, where there is not link between cause and effect."
Hmmm...now it seems to me that I've been remarkably consistent, my friend. I have stated again and again how I AFFIRM the existence of agency, as agency theorists understand it. Nearly ad nauseum. I have also shown philosophical and psychological evidence that shows that agency theory is WITHIN the sphere of determinism. Tom Morris mentions the limitations of agency theory in his book:
Page 147
"I won't pretend that agency theory doesn't have its critics. They ask two questions. First, what in the world is an agent? Secondly, what is the MECHANISM by which agents cause actions? In answer to the second question, there is a good deal of MYSTERY yet to be resolved." (emphases mine)
See, now HERE is the issue that we are dealing with. The agency theorists stop short of trying to conceptualize the mechanism and, lo and behold, pull out the "mystery card" But WHY stop? Modern psychology has given us all the tools we need to show how agency is IN NO WAY incompatible with determinism. Moreover, our theological basis helps us deal with the metaphysical problems agency theorists run into. Bandura loves agency. William James loves agency (Read up on the fundamentally American philosophical view of Pragmatism) And Tom Morris loves agency. BUT agency is not outside of the sphere of causation. It just posits causation OF ANOTHER TYPE. And this type of causation is STILL in the realm of predictability with respect to God. Please remember this. Thus as I said before:
"What I've been saying is that, due to God's omniscience and corresponding predictive ability, these power of agency choices that we make have ALWAYS been in the mind of God, and were predicted by Him, from the intial creative event."
and again,
"Determinism is a fact of human existence. Human agency and self-efficacy are compatible with determinism. Therefore, my model is very appropriate and SHOULD be accepted, on those bases."
Nuff said.
Lastly, Beso said:
You never answered my critique of you several days ago that YOU attribute libertarian freedom to God while claiming it is unintelligible when applied to humans.
Mephi's Reply:
I didn't apply "libertarian" freedom to God. I attributed SOVEREIGN freedom to God, by nature of his position as sole arbiter of the universe. Check the writing again.
Well, thanks for the input. Seemed a little tense there at first, my friend, but it's cool. And yes, I do stay up quite late. LOL
Warmest regards,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
sparkleylight
11/02/00 11:05 PM
RE: Mephi 'Check' this out
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEY MEPHI,
I will make it short so we can stay on the point.
1)If God is the God of Romans 9 the way YOU are translating it, how can He also be the God of no partiality? Is He 'no respector of persons' or not....in your view?
I think the Potter and clay is speaking of the gifts He gives and the 'Part' of THE BODY He assigns them (ie. the 'little toe' vs. the 'vital organ')no one CAN argue with the 'Potter', all can be used and should be content in whatever He gifts them. In my translation,
the words "has endured with much patience the objects of wrath" are also in Romans. What is He enduring, why is He patient? Could this be a reference to the verse where HE says HE wants NO man to perish, but ALL to come to repentance? How could He patiently wait for that if He predestined some to perish?
Oh, maybe that verse responds to people questioning the return of Christ..... where it is stated again that HE is patient and wanting no one (not even one) to perish. Again, if He knows who will perish, is He confused by not wanting anyone to?
Why does the inerrant Word use such terminology??????
Sorry to bring those up, but logically we must be asking each other..."What EXACTLY would jive with the 'Character' of God"?
Is He JUST, if so, which view presents 'Justness', is HE Loving..if so which view presents 'lovingness'...and on and on.
I am not asking you to choose a singular view, however, if we are going to vote....the questions should be asked.
I was raised Catholic, converted to Assembly of God, and now evangelical. I would say I have given equal time to Calvin, Arminius, and ...the pope Today, I study to find Truth and do not seek to label it, other then the label of personified Truth....Jesus Christ
God Bless and have a great day!
sparkle
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
11/02/00 12:02 PM
Is God like Captain Amazing?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You go Mephi! You're single-handedly taking on quite a crew.
I must admit, I'm having a hard time grasping your beef with Boyd. But I'd like to respond to something you said that really blew my mind--when you compared God to special agent Ethan Hunt (who would be reduced to a merely above-average guy if he didn't have a seriously nasty villian to battle) in order to support the Augustinian mosaic model of evil.
Perhaps an even more telling analogy comes from the movie "Mystery Men," in which the superhero, Captain Amazing is so effective, that he works himself out of the job and nobody appreciates how Amazing he is anymore. So Captain Amazing resorts to getting his arch-enemy Cassanova Frankenstein out on parole so he can kick his butt (excuse my french) and be Amazing again.
On top of the ickiness of construing God's glory as analogous to ego-tripping special agents and super heroes, I have some other problems with this analogy. You ask, "How could we know God as being good, just and righteous if there was no UNrighteousness and evil with which to contrast these wonderful characteristics?" In response, I ask, Is goodness relative or absolute? Does God need evil in order to show us how good he is? Was God good before creation, or must the adversary be co-eternal with God in order for God to be God? What about the eschaton? How will we know God is good after the adversary has been vanquished once and for all?
You cited Wiesel's "Night." The experience of evil in the concentration camp was so profound that when someone asked, "Where is God?" Another pointed to a child that the guards had hanged for stealing bread and said, "There he is." Their perception of God's glory was NOT enhanced by their experience of evil. It seems to me that this is overwhelmingly the case for the masses of people who (supposedly) function as dark pieces of the mosaic (like Zosia), and as for those who (supposedly) function as light pieces--most of them are oblivious to their priviledged positions or if they do appreciate it they tend to give themselves the credit rather than glorifying God.
The Bible says that the devil seeks to "steal, kill, and destroy." The thing that bugs me about the mosaic model is that it suggests that God is somehow doing us a favor by unleashing this "roaring lion" on creation so that we can grasp how glorious God really is and how much God really loves us. Huh???? I assume I am misunderstanding something here because if this is not logically incoherent then what is?
On the contrary, evil more often serves as a stumbling block to appreciating God's glory rather than a stepping stone. That's what makes evil so EVIL. That's why God is not OK with it, in any way shape or form. God is grieved by evil (in his omnipresent imminence he suffers with us), not glorified (in his transcendence, it is not a masterpiece that he sees--not Ms. X's cube of 0s and 1s, but a mission field desparately in need of his redemption--he wants every 0 to be a 1).
I think that Boyd's 6 theses of the warfare worldview are a much more coherent treatment of evil than the mosaic model. It seems like you are asking me to exchange the conviction that "Love Requires Freedom" for "Love Requires Hate." This is going to take a lot more convincing.
Your arguments thus far surrounding soft determinism, agency theory, sovereign freedom, etc. strike me as highly nuanced and technical. I'm a fairly sharp gal, but so far I'm not following you. If the mosaic analogy accurately reflects the view you are espousing, then if you really want to call a vote at this point, I'm sticking with open theism.
I don't know how to make little smiley faces in my message, otherwise I would so I don't come of sounding so grouchy. Aside from slight irritation at not being able to follow the technical stuff, I'm enjoying this discussion and eagerly awaiting your response.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
11/02/00 4:43 PM
Hmmm....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear G-D-G,
Thanks for that accolade, milady! For the record, there is no beef with Dr. Boyd or any other Open View Theist. As I've said before, I highly respect Dr. Boyd and esteem him as a Christian brother. This is merely theological discussion about the Open View. I would never try to make this a personal issue, as that's quite beneath all of us here. If by my zeal, I seem to be beefing, I apologize. I just find theological discourse so cool. Knowhutimean?
You said:
"I'd like to respond to something you said that really blew my mind--when you compared God to special agent Ethan Hunt (who would be reduced to a merely above-average guy if he didn't have a seriously nasty villian to battle) in order to support the Augustinian mosaic model of evil."
Mephi's Reply:
Er..um..we have a miscommunication. I didn't expect you to make any type of analogical link between God and Mission Impossible 2. I was just saying that there was a LINE in the movie that spurned my thought.
"In the movie, Mission Impossible 2, a very interesting statement was made..."
Nothing more than that. So, I have not tried to construe "God's glory as analogous to ego-tripping special agents and super heroes." I didn't attempt to use ANY type of analogy along your lines.
You ask:
"In response, I ask, Is goodness relative or absolute? Does God need evil in order to show us how good he is? Was God good before creation, or must the adversary be co-eternal with God in order for God to be God? What about the eschaton? How will we know God is good after the adversary has been vanquished once and for all?"
Mephi's Reply:
Oh boy. This is going to take some time to do and explain. I'm going to have to defer this one for later. But in the meantime, I'd like you to check this out. PLEASE read it. It's a paper by Michael Czapkay Sudduth, a philosopher of religion and professor at St. Michael's College in Vermont. It's called "Is it Coherent to Suppose that God is both Morally Good and "Above Morality"? The site is: http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/GODANDMO.htm
This will give some background information for when I do answer this.
You said:
"Their perception of God's glory was NOT enhanced by their experience of evil. It seems to me that this is overwhelmingly the case for the masses of people who (supposedly) function as dark pieces of the mosaic (like Zosia), and as for those who (supposedly) function as light pieces--most of them are oblivious to their priviledged positions or if they do appreciate it they tend to give themselves the credit rather than glorifying God"
"The thing that bugs me about the mosaic model is that it suggests that God is somehow doing us a favor by unleashing this "roaring lion" on creation so that we can grasp how glorious God really is and how much God really loves us. Huh???? I assume I am misunderstanding something here because if this is not logically incoherent then what is?"
Mephi's Reply:
Sigh. See, here's another one. In order to deal with this, I have to discuss the subject of meliorism, surd evil, and it's relationship to agency and the warfare thing. Gotta put it off.
You said:
"Your arguments thus far surrounding soft determinism, agency theory, sovereign freedom, etc. strike me as highly nuanced and technical. I'm a fairly sharp gal, but so far I'm not following you."
Mephi's Reply:
Ok. Confession time again. I find this situation very frustrating. (Not YOU, G-D-G I love ya to death! )What I mean is that in order to understand a lot of my argumentation, lots of technical language and very involved concepts are unavoidable. Agency, determinism, soft determinism, fatalism, necessary and sufficient causation, meliorism, etc. I'm NOT blaming anyone for having a hard time understanding my terms. That would be condescending and silly. These terms are not generally known terms. Some of them are philosophical and psychological terms that are quite technical, to be honest. But understand my concern. It doesn't really matter how well put together argumentation is, if its incomprehensible to a given audience. I'm not saying that my argumentation is hole-proof, by any stretch of the imagination. But what matters a powerful argument in which people get lost trying to understand. On the other hand, statements made for the opposition (which can at times be caricatures) can be more amply understood and get more credence BECAUSE they are more readily understood. I really do try to break things down as far as I can without 1) losing the meaning of what I'm saying and 2) having to write pages and pages of explanatory material for the terms themselves.
Moreover, that my view is not as emotionally satisfying as other alternatives seems obvious. As such, human emotion reacts with much force against the view. The heart as well as the mind wants to be sated. Thus, views that violate something important to that heart REALLY get scrutinized. Now, put this fact together with the level of technicality involved in the explanations, and you can receive frustrated and somewhat disenfranchised listeners.
Please, PLEASE, don't anyone take this as me being condescending. The people here are all high-caliber thinkers with excellent ideas, and I mean that. All of you have my enduring respect and love as Christian brothers and sisters, as well. I just note that many of my arguments ARE so technical, and I don't know what exactly to do to bridge the gap. There. That's my rant. Now, on to other things...
You said:
"I think that Boyd's 6 theses of the warfare worldview are a much more coherent treatment of evil than the mosaic model. It seems like you are asking me to exchange the conviction that "Love Requires Freedom" for "Love Requires Hate." This is going to take a lot more convincing."
Mephi's Reply:
I'll keep this short. Again, I will defer this to later. Dr. Boyd's warfare view is compatible with my view, with some modifications:
1. Love requires AGENCY
2. AGENCY implies GENUINE CHOICE
3. GENUINE CHOICE entails moral responsibility
4. Moral responsibility is Proportionate to the Potential to Influence
5. Power to Influence is Irrevocable
6. Power to Influence is Finite
I don't have time to elaborate these, but I will in the future.
You say:
"If the mosaic analogy accurately reflects the view you are espousing, then if you really want to call a vote at this point, I'm sticking with open theism"
Mephi's Reply:
If that's what you feel, so be it. But I do ask one thing. Please try to make your decision on the proponderence of the evidence I've presented and not solely on extraneous feelings. The "mosaic model" as you call it, (I've never heard that term before) has MANY more implications than we've dealt with here. As does the idea of reconciling God's goodness with the existence of evil. For right now, I just want to stick with the omniscience thing. One thing at a time, as it were. The omniscience thing is what the models about. And if I don't watch it, I'll get bogged in matters that don't deal directly with the model, including my own personal view of history. And I can't afford to do that just yet. I'm only one person.
I hope this does something towards answering SOME of the questions. LOL Your questions are VERY important and they will be answered in turn. But seriously, thank ALL of you guys for being so patient with me. This is helping me more than you'll ever know.
Warmest regards,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
11/03/00 12:34 AM
RE: It's VOTING Time, Amigos!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow!!! I'm impressed!! It took me so long to read it all I don't have time to respond but hey it was fun. I think Beso rocks. I like the way you are keeping a gracious tone Meph even if I did see the word rebelious. I bet the Doc is getting a kick out of this.
be blessed
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:55 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 |
|
|