 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 5:25 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message
BBBCanada
11/09/00 11:18 AM
Open View and Personal Guidance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does the "open view" influence your understanding of personal guidance? For i.e. how are we to think of events or situations that happen in our lives? The book which can be purchased at the Open Theism link, "The Openness of God," mentioned that while the authors were in general agreement with Garry Friesn's book, "Decision Making and the Will of God" they were in disagreement with his understanding of sovereignty, that is, Garry still holds to a providential blueprint. How do events and circumstances relate to the Open view? For i.e. I may pray to see some event changed in my nation or personal life, while this does not entail that God has a divine blueprint, does this mean that God has, "controlled" these events? And how did he precisely do this? Is this not then inconsistent with the open view? What'dya think?
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
11/10/00 6:34 PM
RE: Control and Influence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Brandon. I'll take a stab at your question.
A slogan that circulated in the early church, prior to Augustine, was that "God is a God of persuasion, not coersion." The answer to your question, Brandon, is found in this slogan. Between a God of deistic detachment and a God of Calvinistic determinism is a God of gracious influence. Scripture clearly teaches that we have incredible authority in prayer. Prayer changes things -- really. This would not be possible if the all of reality is eternally settled. But prayer doesn't usually GUARANTEE that the change you pray for will come about. Does this mean prayer is impotent? Not at all. Prayer releases spiritual power that INFLUENCES how things flow, but does not itself coerse them. The faith that you pray with, the persistence of your prayer and the number of people praying all contribute to this influence, according to Scripture. Other factors that influence what influence prayer has may be the behavior of spirits (as in Dan. 10 when an evil spirit intercepted a prayer that God answered). So, we may believe that prayer is centrally important. Things happen because of prayer that really would not have happened if we did not pray. Yet prayer, like all human activity, rarely can absolutely gaurantee a certain outcome. There are innumerable variables at work. Think about it. later
Greg
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
11/14/00 9:40 AM
RE: RE: Control and Influence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg, I agree with most of what you what you say here, especially when you say that things are not settled and I agree that there are many variables at work in prayer. I agree that prayer can rarely absolutely guarantee the outcome. My question is:
1. The "intersection" between what is human and what is divine in the "influence" of how 'THINGS' (situations, circumstances) flow.
2. If we prayed for a particular outcome and it comes to pass, does this mean that we should take direction or guidance from that as being the "will of God" not as in a divine blueprint but for that particular situation?
Greg could you give an example of say the difference between control and influence. I haven't been able to get to my books to review all of this at the moment so I am basically going off the top of my head with some of my questions. Thanks.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
11/14/00 6:35 PM
RE: RE: RE: Control and Influence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Brandon.
"Control" is what YOU have over your tongue. "Influence" is what you have with friends.
Where does human and divine influence intersect? I think this is usually as unanswerable as the question: Where does genetic influence, social influence and free will intersect? Everything is so blended, and the variables are so innumerable, that its usually impossible to specific what aspect of what is traceable back to which influence.
When a particular outcome we prayed for comes to pass, you want to know if you should "take guidance" from this. Well, its not infallible, but the more unlikely the outcome was, the more likely it is the result of prayer, hence the more likely you should look to it for guidance. In general, Brandon, I'd recommend prayerfully entertaining in your mind the options in front of you. Imagine the various futures that each option might bring. Ask yourself, a) which possible future "fits" (e.g. ministers peace, feels right) and b) which option seems most likely to bring about the greatest kingdom impact? Also, talk to friends. If you're having trouble discerning God's will, tell God you plan on doing what seems most reasonable unless he stops you.
Blessings brother
Greg
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Calvinist
11/18/00 9:50 AM
Needs a Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like for all open view theists, including GregBoyd, to give a response to this article. It's a critique of openness and the problem of evil.
http://www.sbts.edu/news/sbjt/summer2000/warearticle.html
thanks.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
11/18/00 10:24 AM
RE: Control and Influence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg said:
"In general, Brandon, I'd recommend prayerfully entertaining in your mind the options in front of you. Imagine the various futures that each option might bring. Ask yourself, a) which possible future "fits" (e.g. ministers peace, feels right)"
But this was the issue brought up in Friesen's book. These various options and futures (circumstances, situations) according to him are no indicator of God's will, or divine blueprint. Yet he believes in a divine blueprint. It seems to me that for Freisen, "open doors," "closed doors," "impressions" or "feelings" are poor indicators of knowing what God would want of us in a given situation or are used as poor criteria for "guidance." This is something that the authors of "The Openness of God" generally agreed to. Yet you seem to be in disagreement with the authors on this point. To put it another way:
1. Friesen believes in a divine blueprint, yet says circumstances, impresssions, etc, are poor indicators to detect what is impossible to determine anyhow, a divine blueprint (what the author's of the "Openess of God" generally agree to, except they don't agree to a divine blueprint.
2. Boyd doesn't believe in a divine blueprint, (yet stated, "Also, talk to friends. If you're having trouble discerning "GOD'S WILL", tell God you plan on doing what seems most reasonable "UNLESS HE STOPS YOU") yet believes that circumstances, impressions, etc can be indicators of God's will. Obviously, because you don't believe in a divine blueprint, you seem to be saying that these circumstances and situations are indicator's for his "will" and "will" possibly meaning whatever circumstance may be PRESENTLY taking place. This is where the confusion arises for me. If I have some two or three options in front of me, and I pick any one of them based on sound counsel, (something you mentioned and something that Friesen is in agreement with)etc, I could really pick anyone of them and not be out of "God's will" (Friesen). Having various options (circumstances)and choosing any one of them seems to me to be in agreement with the open view that there is not a divine blueprint. You mention that God "could stop you." If God stops you, obviously, according to your view this is not his will. How would he stop you? A closed door here, an open door there? Yet according to Friesen and the various authors of the "Openness of God," open or closed doors are not any indicator of "God's will."
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
12/13/00 12:09 PM
RE: RE: Control and Influence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never did get an answer to this. Greg? Anyone else?
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/13/00 12:15 PM
RE: Needs a Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one has responded to "Calvinist" yet either. Has anyone read the article he cites? Calvinist, can you summarize particular points Ware makes that you would like us to respond to?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/13/00 3:07 PM
RE: RE: RE: Control and Influence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An excellent question Brandon.
As your post indicates, there is no easy answer to this, but what we are attempting to do here is understand what it means to "walk in the Spirit" (Romans 8) to put it positively or to live by faith (stated negatively in Romans 14:23 as "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin"). This is to ask a question which no other person can answer for you but God. Romans 8 deals with this nicely. See esp. verses 14-16, 22-27 but the whole chapter speaks to your question. There is an inwardness (vs. 11, 23, 27) to faith and a communing of our spirit with the Spirit of God (vs. 16) whereby we can experience the "inner testimony of the Holy Spirit" as Calvin put it. All of this "spirit" talk requires discernment of course, and that too is a bit subjective, but such is the nature of faith. Faith is not algebraic, it is thoroughly relational, as our conversations should better reflect. Thanks for bringing this important question back to the fore of the discussion. It is worthy of further attention.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/13/00 4:59 PM
RE: Needs a Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ware's article is 35 pages long so for a reasonably brief response I will address only his conclusions and describe how this Open Theist deals with them.
"Despair Amidst Suffering and Pain: A Practical Outworking of Open Theism’s Diminished View of God"
by Bruce Ware
Responding to Suffering in Open Theism: Conclusion:
Ware writes:
One of open theism’s strongest appeals is its claim to account for tragic human suffering in such a way that God is both blameless and caring. On the surface, this appeal appears strong. Upon examination, however, it is clear that open theism’s counsel is unbiblical, incoherent, and shallow. It is unbiblical insofar as it fails to account for the prevailing biblical vision of the God who reigns over human affairs and who ensures that his purposes are accomplished even through human wickedness and evil.
Modes:
Open theists believe that God accomplishes God's purposes both through and "in spite of" human wickedness and evil. Ware's view would require that relation to only be describable as "through" for there could be no action completely "in spite of". God is always active in the actions of humans, including rape, child molestation and genocide among other radical evils of our world. Open theists recognize that God and Satan are distinct and we do not attribute these latter activities to some subtle level of God's will unless God explicitly takes credit for them, which incidentally God does do at times in the Old Testament. But that is yet another problem.
Ware writes:
It is incoherent because it faces the horns of an untenable dilemma. Either God allows suffering he could prevent, in which case moral questions of the blamelessness of God are not avoided as openness advocates propose. Or God stands idly by, unable to prevent great and agonizing human suffering, in which case one is led to despair at the realization that life is under the control of massive amounts of free choice, over which God has no control, and much of which is desperately evil.
Modes:
We are all confronted by evil as a serious theological problem, the question is where and when do you appeal to mystery? Open theists say, "We know that God is for you and not against you. God loves you and suffers with you." That is part of the message of the cross. We are clear about the character of God but unclear about exactly what in creation made the particular evil event happen. We know that God does punish but we also know that God is a good teacher and there are warnings and the punishment is relationally appropriate as Scripture demonstrates. So the mystery is located in the complexity of creation and the many variables involved. For Ware, the mystery is located squarely on God's head. Somehow we must reconcile this event with the fact that it is a pat of God's good and perfect will. This totally neglects the fact that God speaks so clearly throughout scripture about the times God's will is neglected and left undone. Even Jesus acknowledges this in his prayer, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." He might as well have said, "because it obviously isn’t being done on earth, that's why I am here." Don't locate the mystery of evil in God if it is reasonable to attribute it to the creation. We do know that God is good and loving and faithful, let us give God the benefit of the doubt.Of course the corresponding dilemma for Ware is that God claims to be good yet regularly permits evil (Ware concedes "desperately evil"). If we are so bold as to acknowledge rape, etc. as truly evil, would it be less so if we find that God specifically permitted it from the foundations of the world? As the child screams in terror because she is being molested by her earthly father, the mother should stand by and say "at least I can rest assured that her Heavenly Father is allowing this for a good reason and has known it would happen forever." To import this sort of meaningfulness to such an event is not redemptive, it is simply confused and exceedingly destructive to all involved. To worship a Heavenly Father who acts in (or even permits) that way is mind numbing. How then can one honestly distinguish good from evil? What will you teach your children? "Your Heavenly Father doesn't stop child molestations, rather he specifically ordains them, know grow up to be a good cop and stop murders, that God specifically ordained." Isn't this to admit that we are more moral than God? Why doesn't the fact that classical theism confounds our innate moral sensibilities seems to phase Classical theists? The answer is often found in one word, security. In their minds power is equivolent to control, so omnipotence means maximal control which implies that all things really are as they should be. For Open Theists, "the art of power is to make free" (Socrates seems to have said it first) and control is delegated with responsibility.
Ware writes:
And, the counsel of open theism is shallow. Many thoughtful Christians will begin to wonder what hope there is if much of suffering is pointless and if God is unable either to prevent it or bring good from it. Despair and lack of confidence in God will be the legacy of open theism, should it extend its influence in the church. The simple truth is this: the God of the Bible is not the limited, passive, hand-wringing God open theism portrays. He is king, lord, sovereign, wise, good, and perfect in all his ways. The message of the Bible is that suffering has meaning, God is in control over it and all else, and so life can be lived by faith in the infinitely wise and powerful God.
Modes:
Anyone who starts a thought with the line "the simple truth is..." about to try to sell you something and what follows Ware's use of this phrase is anything but simple, it is loaded with theological landmines. Beware of this sort of rhetoric where ever you find it. In fact, be just as cautious of it if you hear an OTist say, "I'm simply reading the Bible literally!"
The hope that this thoughtful Christian finds is that there is a great and wonderful God who calls us his own and creates us in God's own image. The dignity and delegation that come with that necessitate some risks on God's part, but God's desire for us and our potential make the risk worth it in God's eyes (my opinion or yours is not important regarding the risk of creation, God is the creator, the risk of creating is God's to take or not). The hope is in knowing that God is not the nervous pathetic deity Ware caricatures the God of Open Theism as but rather that God is for us and not against us. God's greatness is in God's omnipotent resolve to love and be loved by others, even created others who do not deserve such glorious grace. God's omnipotence is reflected in God's ability to make saints out of sinners without violating the structures of God's creation. Suffering is better left understood as pointless than wrongly attributed to God. God tells his children when they are being punished, as any good parent would. Ware's suggestion that the God of OT is "unable either to prevent it [suffering] or bring good from it" is dead wrong on both accounts, though it certianly is an effective rhetorical strategy for those who worry about security.Don't be fooled by what might be perceived as confidence, I have my reasons to believe that Ware and others in the Classical camps that fight so hard have reason to feel threatened. Their theological security blanket is at stake. What would they do if they had to confront a God who risked and a creation that was truly every bit as scary as it so often seems? Open theists choose to live in the world as it is, not as they wish it were, this does not answer all of questions that are raised but we do rest in the faith that God is trustworthy, wise and omnicompetent, completely faithful and God's omnipotent resolve is revealed in the love of God expressed through Jesus Christ.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
12/14/00 3:38 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Control and Influence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ModesofThought said:
"Faith is not algebraic, it is thoroughly relational, as our conversations should better reflect. Thanks for bringing this important question back to the fore of the discussion. It is worthy of further attention."
Ooooo...I like that! I did think that needed to be addressed because it seemed to be negectled in our technical discussions of control, sovereignty, foreknowledge, etc. I hope there will be more dialogue on this as well. Thanks for your response.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/15/00 1:56 AM
Anyone out here care about the Ware-abouts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who wants to come to Ware's defense? I guess you all agree with me. Cool.
Sorry 'bout the painful pun, its WAY to late.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
01/20/01 12:29 PM
Control and Influence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K'. Modes. Here is the thread on "Personal Guidance." I think it was on the anthropomorphism thread where "intuitive phenomological experience" was brought up by Mephi and/or Shine. Does this have anything to do with what you discuss here when you talk about "inner testimony of the Holy Spirit" for personal guidance? Obviously, this has some bearing on theories of inspiration and God's revelation to us as well as anthropomorphisms.
But for personal guidance you say,
"what we are attempting to do here is understand what it means to "walk in the Spirit" (Romans 8) to put it positively or to live by faith (stated negatively in Romans 14:23 as "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin"). This is to ask a question which no other person can answer for you but God. Romans 8 deals with this nicely. See esp. verses 14-16, 22-27 but the whole chapter speaks to your question. There is an inwardness (vs. 11, 23, 27) to faith and a communing of our spirit with the Spirit of God (vs. 16) whereby we can experience the "inner testimony of the Holy Spirit" as Calvin put it."
This strikes me as too subjective and it seemed to strike the authors of "The Openness of God" as subjective as well. Most Christians worry sick as to whether they are "following God's will" (sinning?), that divine blueprint. So Friesen's book puts that to rest. But then I don't see how you can get away from those fears, when you say,
" "walk in the Spirit" (Romans 8) to put it positively or to live by faith (stated negatively in Romans 14:23 as "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin")."
If at the moment I have a decision to make and after much prayer, counsel, etc, I decide to go against my "gut feeling" (spirit talk?) favorable circumstances, and the godly counsel, would this then be, "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin?" At the same time I like when you say, "Faith is not algebraic, it is thoroughly relational"
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
01/20/01 2:15 PM
RE: Control and Influence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon,
Your question is well put. To move this forward let me put a challenge to you. You say that what I have laid out is too subjective. By whose judgment? Yours? Of what relevance is your security about the subjectivity/objectivity of this if what I have presented to you is clearly laid out in Scripture as I have shown in Romans 8? Are you not obligated to Romans 8 because Paul was being "too subjective"?
There is a clarity which characterizes listening prayer because of the encounter (relational) nature of the event (you are set apart to God in a specific way at that time). Some speak of a "peace that passes understanding". This peace/clarity is not reducible to "gut feelings" (which are not equivolent to spirit talk!!), favorable circumstances, or even godly counsel. One should attend to all of these just mentioned, but the weight of the matter should be decided in obedience to what God does to you in prayer. As Boyd has said in another context, God is a very good communicator and when we have heard from God it is more often a matter of orthopraxy (obedience) than orthodoxy (right thinking).
Great question. Hope I responded appropriately.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
01/22/01 3:21 PM
Control and Influence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes said:
"You say that what I have laid out is too subjective. By whose judgment? Yours? Of what relevance is your security about the subjectivity/objectivity of this if what I have presented to you is clearly laid out in Scripture as I have shown in Romans 8?"
and
"Hope I responded appropriately."
I think you have. Corresponding with the WWJD thread, I think we have enough information to follow Jesus example for what we might do in a given situation. However, I don't think we can be too dogmatic and so these things need to be brought to God in prayer and see how we can apply God's Word for our life situations. I don't want to judge your statements on subjectivity by extremes, it would seem to me to be comparing apples with oranges, but what do you say to those who flippingly say, "God told me thus and thus?" What about the "guilt factor" for disobedience? Should I feel as guilty about disobeying "whatever is not of faith is sin" principle than what is more clearly laid out in scripture?
Brandon
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:33 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|