 |
| 
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 7/22/2001 11:51 AM (GMT -6) |   | FYI. The earliest biblical reference to creatio ex nihilo is Rom. 4:17 (the term originated in 2 Macc. 7:28 and also appears in Heb. 11:3). In this passage, Paul makes a parallel between God’s power to resurrect the dead and God’s power to call “into existence the things that do not exist.” This verse occurs in the context of Paul’s description of Abraham’s faith.
For other biblical creation accounts, see Ps. 8, 19, 24, 46, 74, 77, 89, 93, 97, 99, 104; Isa. 27, 30, 17, 34, 40–55, 65–66; Hab. 3; Ezek. 29; Nahum 1; Jere. 4; Amos 4, 5, 9; Hos. 8; Mal. 2; Prov. 3, 8; Eccl. 3, 12; Job 3, 22, 37, 38.
pia
Edited by - pia†desideria on 07/22/2001 5:22:00 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/22/2001 12:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: Given God's infinite intelligence and omniscience, did God geniunely think that the emergence of God-denying decisions would NOT EVER occur, given the very nature of libertarian free will? It seems to me that this is unbridled optimism, on the verge of naivete. Surely, God saw this coming.
Doc: Mephi supposes that "given the very nature of libertarian free" it had to be certain that sooner or later sin would enter the picture. I suspect he's right, hence I suspect that God entered into the project of this creation with the certainty he'd go to the cross (something Sanders and most other open theists deny).
I may be wrong, however, because I'm not sure what "the nature of libertarian freedom" IS apart from the fallen way we experience in this fallen world. It's certainly not "in the nature of libertarian freedom" TO sin, but it IS "in the nature of libertarian freedom" to have the POSSIBILITY of sin. This DOESN'T mean, however, that with each individual there has to be a 50:50 chance of following God or not. It may be that we think sin was inevitable from the start ONLY BECAUSE SIN IS SO NATURAL TO US NOW. Perhaps Sanders and others are correct in supposing that, in our prefallen state, sin was only "an outside possibility."
hmmmmmm.
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/22/2001 12:30 PM (GMT -6) | | pia†desideria --- you never cease to amaze me! :)
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 7/22/2001 12:32 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/27/2001 6:41 PM (GMT -6) | | "It seems that there is a real risk factor in that God takes in the possibility that God might subject Christ to the incarnation and no one would believe! "
"God took the risk that none of us would respond in love to the divine love. "
¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾
A Revivalist framework for God's "risk"?
¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾
Going through some e-mails with a friend before I joined this board I come upon one that was spawned on this page. I think I'll float it and see if it swims. Or rather, maybe I'll put my foot in this stream. Better, both feey... I have a comment about "RISK" or how risk is being considered on this board. Maybe someone wants to either answer me on this one, or push my objection aside and explain to me why. I'm open.
I'm going to say that I suspect the term "Risk" *allows* folks to think of God's actions as being somewhere on an actuarial table. That risk is an economic model, or something. That's one foot. Here is the other one. I suspect, or at least I want someone/anyone to hear--so as to get a rise out of them--that the reason this is taken that way has nothing to do with philosophical presuppositions or ontologies. (I don't want to try to prove it; I'm just "suspecting" it.  ) Instead perhaps this just is the influence of living with marketing, and most likely the influence of the Revivalist movement. (My father-in-law used to go up to Winona Lake, IN for meetings in high school.) to make things even more messy--sorry--I'm going to launch this off a quote from an out-of-town-guest (All respect and regard extended!), Dr. Sanders. Anyone want to answer this one?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. John Sanders Posted - 07/19/2001 : 12:59:22 PM
Yes, it is a genuine war. God took the risk that none of us would respond in love to the divine love. However, in the Bible and in our lives we see that God has indeed been victorious in lives of many people. So, do open theists believe God "must" win. Not in the sense that God forces our will. If you mean "must" in the sense that God has promised a new heaven and new earth, then, yes, God must win that for it is a question of divine power not human will.
John Sanders
Dr. J
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above quote includes the expression: "the risk that none of us would respond in love to the divine love." Shame on me for pigeonholing this as "Revivalist," but I have to wonder whether the "decision" issue of revivalism exerts to much influence in the "risk" issue. Not to exclude it! Not to say it is entirely out-of-place! But I want to question it here. Does that limit our view of God's risk. Do we miss something greater?
Would you would agree with me if I suggested that God suffers when any of his creatures suffer? Some could eloquently tell me why that is so, in theological terminology and still have it make good sense. And I could quote with you from the Gospels: "Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me." I think we could agree. Lets also consider whether we bring in too much of our petty human emotion (and selfish, sinful perspective), as to when and IF rejection were allowed to trace the limits of God's sufferings.
If I had to say (I'd not be eager to say on something I've not studied on.), I think I'd offer that I'd hold to the "freedom" that God does not need us. Maybe unintentionally, or not, that doesn't seem to be the evident view in some of the postings. This doesn't seem to me to be just academic. Though not needing to create...God did create. And moreso, God condescended to be made man in every respect but sin. Strikes me as "reaching out"; not waiting to be asked to dance-. By my intuition. But if God did not need to create, I don't know how rejection would "hurt"...with respect to that way in which God didn't need us. (I hold that God dod not, and still does not NEED. (But philosophy is not my discipline--I'm an inconsistent practitioner.)
(I'm unclear whether those in OV leaning toward Process, while giving meditations on change, might have let that slip a bit--with regard to God as having "moved" from not needing to needing? You judge! I ONLY wonder--I don't accuse.)
As to God's risk and God's suffering I consider those to be only with respect to the creation (including us) and to Christ's passion. I am think-ING of God's risk to be the ONGOING syergistic participation of God and us. "Enhypostatically" we are united with Christ in/?/through the Holy Spirit. (I hope I'm getting this right.) Grieving the Holy Spirit sounds like suffering--connected with risk. (Its still easy to slip back to thinking of risk in quantifiable/actuarial terms--but there is, I think a qualitative aspect to this too. I feel it--I'm not even going to look in Webster's!) The bulk of this risk would come from God's participation in all of his creatures; and where free-will makes sin, or where the curse from sin blights, there it seems also would be risk and passion. How does this seem to y'all?
Certainly Dr. Sanders is not cornered by my quoting him. He could (Sanders) mean by "respond in love to the divine love" the change of relationality that walking-in-the-Light brings to both the walker and the walked with. But I limited/reduced it to the "decision" so as to make a point. (If this is at his expense, then I appologize.)
I think--in CAPS HERE. I THINK THAT THE ASPECTS OF RISK AND SUFFERING NEED TO BE FLESHED OUT ON THE BOARD. SO AS TO BE A GOOD INFLUENCE, I THINK. But I am not the one to do it.
Why. Because all I do it take what I read there and compare it to what road-tested I find in church tradition. And with my poor boot-up speed I can only write about the few things that are well formed in my mind at that time. (Which I CAN use to keep me on track--I hope!  )
So....One of the Trinity Died." God suffered. Suffers. Yet--whether you say so or not--God does not change in essence. How......The personal basis of the Trinity. The hypostasis (what's the plural?) and the hypostatic union in Christ. THERE is mystery. MYSTERY that we cannot reduce. But as tools we have the seeming paradoxes. The unmovable God was moved. The One beyond measure became poor. Beyond containment became contained in a cave.
I REALLY think that LIVING with such opposites is spiritually healthy! It helps make us more pliant for handling the fact that as synergy, when God approached mankind He prepared us to approach him too. A Virgin conceived. One of US said "yes"--freely, as much free as someone who needs an other for existence can be free. (Only God is free from that.) OnE of us did not deliberate, did not have to choose, had the holiness--God-centeredness--to say undividedly "yes." And God used that, and then did the 100% that He is so famous for. The best example of God-to-mankind synergy.
"What shall we offer you O Christ,
who for our sakes has appeared on earth as man?
Every creature made by thee offers Thee thanks.
the angels offer Thee a hymn; the heavens a star;
the Magi, gifts; the shepherds there wonder;
the earth its cave; the wilderness the manger:
and we offer Thee a Virgin Mother.
O preeternal God have mercy on us.
So...
In all thing we must help ourselves and each other to live with mystery!
Of God's suffering. Of God's risk taking, and risking.
PotOnWheel
Edited by - potonwheel on 07/27/2001 11:45:49 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/30/2001 2:38 PM (GMT -6) | | PotonWheel, you say "the unmovable God has moved." I agree we must accept some mystery, but how can you accept this assertion, for it is not "mystery," it is "contradiction." It asserts and denies the same thing -- which is to say, it is devoid of any meaning. You can't accept it, for there is no "it" to accept.
If God moved, it means he is not "unmoveable."
I dont' see this as "healthy" for spirituality at all.
Why not start with the clear fact that God has moved, and reject the hellenistic philosophical teaching that the perfect is "unmoveable?" Of course, Scripture teaches that God does not change, but it always asserts this in covenantal contexts -- viz. in contexts that are affirming his trustworthy character.
Think about it.
Doc
"Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." C.S.Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/31/2001 3:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Doc:
Thanks for the criticism. I think I said "...such opposites is spiritually healthy! It helps make us more pliant..." "Pliant" is a key word here! . . . . If you took to say to that opposites are by themselves healthy, then I guess I'd would agree with you. You affirmed the place of mystery, AND you were kind enough to nest my expression as "does not change" within "covenental contexts." Thanks for finding it a new home.
"Devoid" of meaning? The literary form is meaningful in itself. And while I might have done a poor job pulling that one from what momentarily passed as memory, there are many wonderfully powerful pairs in liturgical use--a few that I did use (They were: "The One beyond measure became poor." and "Beyond containment became contained in a cave.", both by Theodore the Studite.), and none of which are going to mislead the participant into following only one side of the set. One that I haven't seen but we might anticipate is "created" and "Creator." I had sent "Modes" two pieces around Christmas: one by Luci Shaw, and one the entire piece by Theodore the Studite. (I think I posted it somewhere on another string.) What these do for me, as a set, illustrates why I say opposites can be healthy. (If you are perfect, then its unnecessary; but I am not perfect.) I was finding that I all too easily could think of Christ too singularly as divine, or also as readily I could think of Him as too singularly human. THAT is not healthy either way. Each literary piece seemed to help me with one of these. Together they kept me on track. "Pliant" Not stuck in a rut. I get in ruts.
My reason for that post had been the feeling that "Risk" was being thought about so much in a quantitative way (a rut?) that the gravitational pull of what thinking about it in qualitative ways might provide might thereby be lacking. But since such adrenaline gets going, maybe testosterone, over these proof-texting sessions I though it wise to propose, rather than an either or, an acceptance of both/and.
BTW--this was not the time to rag on Hellenic culture. Or to minimize Christian transformation on it. This literary divice we are discussing is DEFINITELY one where Christians redeemed cultural forms and transformed them into tools in the Kingdom. We of course would not dismiss Irian Jaya or its potentialities so quickly? "Hypostasis" never meant what it did until the Capadocians redefined it. They gave Western culture the ideas of "person" that was quite redeemed from the pagan Greek "accidents" bound for reincarnational therapy. Conjecture: What would Special Ed. be without the Capadocians?
P.S. - I liked Meyendorff's book, "Christ in Eastern Christian Thought." Jaroslav Pelikin's jacket quote was "perhaps the only satisfactory study in a Western language of the crucial developments of Christology." Starting from near scratch, as I did, it was a great help to me.
PotOnWheel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/5/2001 12:20 PM (GMT -6) | | These are two "hymn verses" for the Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (August 6)
quote:
TROPARION in Tone 7
You were Transfigured on the Mount, O Christ God,
Revealing Your glory to Your disciples as far as they could bear it.
Let Your everlasting Light shine upon us sinners!
Through the prayers of the Theotokos, O Giver of Light, glory to You!
KONTAKION in Tone 7
On the Mountain You were Transfigured, O Christ God,
And Your disciples beheld Your glory as far as they could see it;
So that when they would behold You crucified,
They would understand that Your suffering was voluntary,
And would proclaim to the world,
That You are truly the Radiance of the Father!
Notice the reason given in these verses for the Transfiguration. (Lets not presume to boil everything down to only one reason, though.) "Your disciples beheld Your glory. . .that. . .they would understand that Your suffering was voluntary." The disciples were going to need this for what lay ahead in Jerusalem. But the Kontakion verse says more. It isn't just a statement about how the diciple's Lord was great, and therefore they had a great Lord. It says that this offering was "voluntary."ow wonderous a love. And how effective taht He gave himself to himself (as He is the judge)! Wow!
And, regarding the Transfiguration, one commentator mentions that it is symbolically at the middle of Mark to echo the Burning Bush--or maybe showing that the Buring bush foreshaddowed the Transfiguation. Also, Moses and Elijah can represent the Law and the prophets, the living and the dead.
Suggestion: Read both the Biblical passages and these two hymn verses on August 6th.
PotOnWheel
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 08/05/2001 5:58:55 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/14/2003 9:01 PM (GMT -6) | | | Thanks for posting these "oldies" as links, Tom. | | Back to Top | | |
| 59 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:31 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 |
|
|