 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Have I been defending Open Theism from the wrong c | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 3:34 AM (GMT -6) |   | TestWaters
11/28/00 5:13 PM
Have I been defending Open Theism from the wrong 'corner'?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find myself in a lot of places where Open Theism is attacked as a straw man (surprise, surprise ). The most common attack is "If God doesn't know the future absolutely, then He cannot control it". That is a nonsensical argument, from where I sit. If He controls all of the parameters of freedom, then He can 'reign them in' at whatever point He chooses to.
Now, having just read the post from Dr. Boyd about 'taking freedom back', I'm finding maybe I'm defending the view wrongly. In any case, I personally think it's very possible and very Biblical that God leaves some of the future 'open', but my purpose for that is Biblical and consistent with free choice--not because I feel we need to provide excuses for God--especially given the entire book of Job where He doesn't excuse Himself for anything (by my reading).
Responses?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
11/29/00 3:02 PM
I Concur, Pahtna...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear TestWaters,
You said,
"In any case, I personally think it's very possible and very Biblical that God leaves some of the future 'open', but my purpose for that is Biblical and consistent with free choice--not because I feel we need to provide excuses for God--especially given the entire book of Job where He doesn't excuse Himself for anything (by my reading)."
Mephi:
You have my applause. If I'm correct, I think that you see the same thing that I do. Many times, the Open View is argued with THEODICY in mind, not merely logical extrapolation of biblical themes and proper exegesis at the core. I may disagree with you as far as the defensibility of Open View from Scripture and it's coherency, but I wholeheartedly affirm one thing you've insinuated that needs to be taken into account with all of this: God doesn't NEED to be justified. God is God, period. When we get to the point of making any type of excuses for God, we've just plain gone too far.
Peace out,
Mephi2K
PS: More to come...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
11/29/00 4:10 PM
yeah, I agree too
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This may come as a surprise to some of you (given my history of hounding people with the problem of evil), but I agree that the primary impetus behind a theological position should not be an attempt to make excuses for God. I concur with Mephi's confession that "God is God" and if anyone thinks they know better, take Testy's advice and read the book of Job.
Just because the open view is often argued with theodicy in mind (as any viable theological position should) does not mean that this approach supercedes or disqualifies the logical extrapolation of biblical themes and proper exegesis which informs it first of all.
Also, Greg Boyd has specified that he considers the open view to be about the nature of creation (i.e. is the future exhaustively determined or partly open as possibilities) before it is about the nature of God.
The most difinitive insight we have into the nature of God is not explained by a particular theogical position, but rather is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. Whatever view we hold, we should constantly be checking it against God's revelation through Christ and through the scriptures.
So Testy, thanks for your insight. Keep up the good work. If you ever get bored with all the straw man arguments and want a real challenge, then talk to Mephi.
Be blessed,
ghost-dog-girl
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
NaveySealed
11/29/00 11:17 PM
RE: Have I been defending Open Theism from the wrong 'corner'?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My arguments for the open view always have love in mind.
God takes risks because God loves. If we are to believe in "the God who loves" we must necessarily believe in "the God who risks".
Love's the reason why
Sealed
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
12/03/00 4:33 PM
RE: Have I been defending Open Theism from the wrong 'corner'?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree TESTWATERS that as with any view, the Open view must be evaluated primarily in terms of exegesis. But addressing the problem of evil is helpful too, is it not? You and Mephi seem to think it wrong to try to explain evil in the world. Why? If the Open view does this better than other views, is this not a plus? You both seem to suggest that wrestling with the problem of evil is arrogant -- we are trying to "justify God." But God doesn't need to be justified, Mephi tells us. This strikes me as dysfunctional. It's sort of like an abused child who gets beat up by a father routinely -- and REALLY gets pounded if she ever says out loud "father, why are you beating me." The father says, "I am your father, and I don't NEED to justify myself. I HOLD the whip!" This poor girl learns -- on threat of hell -- to call her father "good" and "loving" and to NOT ask any questions.
So far as Ican see, this is how Calvinism operates. Bruce Ware (The God of a Lesser Glory) says he believes in the "all good and all glorious God" -- who happens to predestine people to burn foreverHave YOU got a problem with that? Who are YOU to question God. And you better watch it. If you're elect, you will "see" the goodness and glory of God in this. Don't you want to be elect? God's hammer is waiting to drop. Strong motivation to "reconsider." Okay ... you know, I guess I do see the goodness and glory in predestined damned babies. Yes, praise God. And away with all those people who believe in a "God of a lesser glory" and who undermine God's absolute control in order to "justify God."
I'm being sarcastic of course. But I hope you get my drift. God may not need justification, but WE need God to be justified. Otherwise there's no meaning in calling him "good" in the face of starving children.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/03/00 5:30 PM
Dysfunctional, eh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice to see you again, Beso. Hope life's going well for ya.
Beso says:
"God may not need justification, but WE need God to be justified. Otherwise there's no meaning in calling him "good" in the face of starving children."
Mephi:
(Disclaimer: The following is not to be taken as personal attack. I repeat, this is NOT a personal attack on anyone! )
Listening to stuff like this really makes me wonder why we don't study the books of Job, Habakkuk, and the Psalms more. This is some Karen Armstrong, Betrand Russell type stuff I think I'm hearing. I wonder if this view SERIOUSLY theocentric at all. Don't get me wrong. I'm not dismissing existential human anguish and pain at all. But sheesh, what take precedence here? God's existence or how we FEEL about God's existence.
What happened to people like Job?
Job 1:20 (RIGHT after his kids were killed)
At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship and said: "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised." In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.
What happened to people like the 3 Hebrew Boys?
Daniel 3:16-18
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But EVEN IF HE DOES NOT, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up."
Let me share something with you, my friend. You can ask all the questions to God that you like. Is God obligated to answer them? Nope. Is God obligated to stop the tears of your aching heart? Nope. Job lost all kinds of stuff that meant the world to him...and he asked God for answers. What did he get in return? REBUKE for acting like God owed him something. And forget all that "Well, look at what Job received after it was all over" stuff. That just avoids the issue. God didn't have to give him jack after it was over...(or maybe secretly many of us really believe that God OWED Job that restitution for his trouble...hmmm)
The bottom line is this: When stuff REALLY hits the fan, and the happy-go-lucky feelings, situations and all that evaporate like so much water, will you TRUST God regardless? Sure, in the natural, this looks like the battered wife who clings to her abusive husband for no reason. But WHAT, friend, is the option? Ditch the Creator of the Universe because, for whatever reason, our life sucks at that point in time? Heh... We have to trust that regardless of what we go through that God loves us and that he is in control. This love was embodied for ALL time in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. NO circumstance, no matter how cruddy, will ever change the fact that God sent His Son to suffer and die for us. To say otherwise is a tacit devaluing of the gracious work and person of Christ. We must keep this in perspective! Is this in any way theological fatalism or stoic resignation? Heck, no. But it is recognition of the truth of the situation. We stand for goodness and truth regardless of the situation. We stand against Satan's machinations down to the last person, it doesn't matter HOW we are faring.
If this sounds too polemical or acerbic to you, then I ask your forgiveness as a brother in Christ. Like I said before, this ain't personal. But as far as "we" needing God to be justified, speak for yourself, homie. I say let God be God, and though it may sound nonsensical or "dysfunctional" to some other people, I will mimic Job when he says...
"Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him." Job 12:15 Recognize game.
In Service to the King of Glory,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TestWaters
12/07/00 1:13 PM
RE: Theodicy as the basis of our Theology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for actually engaging me on this topic (and sorry it's been so long). I didn't have (and maybe still don't) words to identify very well my discomfort with how open theism is perceived.
I'll continue under a psuedonym for at least a post or two because I need to understand more where people are coming from. This is the first time I've done that and I promise I won't switch psuedonyms.
My theology is closer to reformed than anyone I have ever met who is even willing to say that they might consider open theism as an option. However, the concept that God MUST foreknow the absolute position of every subatomic particle in order to be soveriegn does not fit my reading of scripture.
There was a distinct day in my life where I decided to quit trying to think God was good. Let me explain that for a minute if it sounds shocking.
God identified Himself primarily as I am. Period. Exclamation point.
Then, he began to identify Himself primarily with people (God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob...)
Then, of course, He sent His son. Wow! That was a bold stroke. They (we) killed Him.
Why did I quit thinking of God as good? My word good is so entangled with my human nature that whenever I project it back to God I distort His image. I need to go back and redefine my 'good' whenever I look at Him. Open theists spend a lot of time picking an individual atrocity and focusing on it. That's OK for awhile. But we can't camp there for too long or our entire lens of God becomes distorted.
However, those of us in the 'reformed' camp have our own very, very distorted lens. And I personally believe that one of our distortions is in the concept that God MUST completely foreknow the future to rule the now.
My purpose of periodically following and contributing to this list is primarily to fix the distortions in my own lens.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/07/00 3:11 PM
RE: RE: Theodicy as the basis of our Theology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TestWaters says,
However, those of us in the 'reformed' camp have our own very, very distorted lens. And I personally believe that one of our distortions is in the concept that God MUST completely foreknow the future to rule the now.
Hmmmmm! That's odd! That belief certainly is not what governs my convictions about God and the future.
I suppose people would call me Reformed, though it's only a designation that identifies me in terms of the history of theology. But I assure you that what governs my convictions about God and the future is Scripture, and Scripture alone.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/07/00 6:08 PM
RE: RE: Theodicy as the basis of our Theology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think one of the reasons open theists tend to emphasize particular evils it that reformed theologians deny the existence of gratuitous suffering--in a system in which an all-good God foreknows/ordains everything that ever happens, all suffering must be instructive, punitive, somehow glorfying, etc. Are you familiar with the realist/nominalist debate over God's nature? According to my very sketchy recollection of these views, realists hold that God's character is unchanging (i.e. all-good, all-loving, etc.) whereas nominalists hold that God's character is up to God. Most Christians (reformed or open or whatever) have a realist view of God's character. But I think that William of Okham and Luther are two examples of nominalists (e.g. Luther talked about the dark/hidden side of God). Just some food for thought.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
12/07/00 7:11 PM
RE: Dysfunctional, eh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI Mephi
No offense taken at your "enthusiastic" response.
Yes we must TRUST God -- even when he providentially allows us to undergo suffering. But we trust him because we believe he is GOOD. And when we trust him to be GOOD, we must believe that HIS "goodness" is something like OUR "goodness." Otherwise calling him "good" means nothing more than calling him "evil." If we call God "good" while attributing behavior to him that is "evil" when anyone else does it, our word "good" has no meaning. We cannot trust him.
You quote Job and recommend his attitude as one we should follow. I encourage you to read the book of Job carefully. Like his friends, Job thought everything came directly from God. But unwilling to accept that he deserved his suffering, he correctly concluded that GOD WAS NOT GOOD. Read what he says about God. He accuses him of evil. He accuses God of ripping him apart like a lion, of causing judges to judge maliciously, of not caring about those who suffer, or refusing to hear their prayers, etc... (I'll look up all the references if you want to dispute this, but I'd rather you carefully re-read the whole book on your own.) When God rebukes everyone in the end, he doesn't admit to doing the deed. He chastises them because they thought they knew so much about the cosmos God created -- so much that they were (erroniously) confident they could attribute everything to God.
Testwaters (or whatever his alias is) is consistent with Reformed theology in concluding that God is not "good." Wesley was on the mark in saying that the God of Calvinism was worse than the devil, for at the devil doesn't pretend to be all loving while bring about evil. But now we must wonder if Testwaters, and Calvinists, believe Jesus when he says "If you see me, you see the Father." Jesus IS all good. And he doesn't ordain child suffering.
As you did with me, I apologize if my response was too "enthusiastic." I embrace Calvinists, and all believers, as brothers and sisters in Christ. But I believe the doctrine of meticulous predestination represents a grave assault on the perfect character of God.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/07/00 10:13 PM
RE: RE: Dysfunctional, eh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! What version of Job have you read? It surely sounds different from the Book of Job I have read.
You claim,
Like his friends, Job thought everything came directly from God. But unwilling to accept that he deserved his suffering, he correctly concluded that GOD WAS NOT GOOD.
Please quote the passage or passages where Job concludes that God is not good but that God is evil. I must have failed to read the parts of Job that you have read. But then, again, I have read Job several times, and I'm quite sure that I have read the whole book each time. I guess I will need to have you quote all those passages you talked about when you said, (I'll look up all the references if you want to dispute this, but I'd rather you carefully re-read the whole book on your own.) I fear that reading the Book of Job again will simply leave me without finding those places where Job concludes that God is evil.
Help! Please!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/07/00 10:32 PM
RE: RE: RE: Theodicy as the basis of our Theology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-D-G says,
I think one of the reasons open theists tend to emphasize particular evils it that reformed theologians deny the existence of gratuitous suffering--in a system in which an all-good God foreknows/ordains everything that ever happens, all suffering must be instructive, punitive, somehow glorfying, etc.
It would be helpful if you would document your claim by demonstrating statements from two or three leading Reformed theologians asserting such a denial. It would also be helpful if you would define what you mean by gratuitous suffering. Do you mean unwarranted suffering? If that is what you mean, could not unwarranted suffering, such as the blind man of John 9, still have purpose? The man was not born blind on account of sin, whether of his parents or himself. Wasn't his blindness without warrant found in him, his parents, his actions, or their actions? I would surely say it was. Was his suffering pointless? Hardly! For God had designs for his blindness.
I know lots of Reformed Christians who talk about gratuitous suffering and gratuitous evil. Of course, they don't mean that their limited understanding is the final word on the matter, as if they have exhaustive knowledge by which they can assuredly declare that God has no purpose for such suffering. For God may have purposes for long-endured suffering, such as with the man who was born blind. Until the Lord Jesus gave him sight in order to show by his sign that he has authority to give belief, I suspect that the man and his parents were thought that the blindness was rather gratuitous.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
12/08/00 2:12 AM
Job as a consistent Calvinist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh all right! I can't sleep so I'll look'em up.
The "version" I read is usually the NRSV (go inclusive translations!)
First a word on Testwaters last entry: on John 9, read Boyd's *God at War*, chapter 7 (I think -- the one where he deals with John). He points out that the words "this [blindness] was done so that" is not in the Greek. The Greek just has "let God be glorified" and then Jesus heals the guy. He points out that evangelicals always appeal to this verse (Jn 9:1-5) to justify their "all things controlled by God" philosophy -- despite Jesus consistently attributing this to Satan and coming against it in God's name! -- and THIS verse doesn't even say what they assume it says.
Now, for all ease-droppers, the issue between me and Meph is this: when Job says "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away..." (1.21) should we take this as an attitude all believers should have? Meph says yes, and uses this against Open theists' tendency to want to justify God in the face of evil. I argue no, in defense of the claim that we DO need to justify God in the face of evil if our talk about God being perfectly good is to have meaning. In my reading, the central point of this great book is to teach us that BOTH Job and his "friends" are wrong, for basically the same reason. They arrogantly think they know so much about the universe that they can trace all evil back to God. The friends work out this assumption to mean that Job DESERVES his suffering. Since Job (along with the reader) knows that he doesn't deserve this suffering, he works it out to mean that God is unjust. So, for example, Job says the following:
"God mocks at the calamity of the innocent
The earth is given into the hand of the wicked
He covers the eyes of its judges --
if it is not he, who then is it?" (Job 9:23-24, cf. also 21:17-26, 30-32; 24:1-12).
Would you recommend believers to assume THIS theolgical position, Meph? Or how about...
"Why are times not kept by the Almighty?
And why do those who know him never see his days?" (24:1)
"From the city the dyning groan,
And the throat of the wounded cries for help,
Yet God pays no attention to their prayers" (24:12).
Pretty edifying stuff, heh? This, I humbly submit, is a man in pain honestly confessing the implications of a view of soverienty as meticulous control.
"Your hands fashioned and made me;
And now you turn and destroy me" (10:8)
Job is raging.
"Bold as a lion you hunt me;
And repeat your exploits against me...
Let me alone, that I might find a little comfort." (10:9, 20).
"You have turned cruel to me;
and with the might of your hand you persecute me" (30:21)
Praise the Lord!
"God has worn me out,
he has made desolate my company
He has shrivelled me up...
He has torn me in his wrath, and hated me;
He has gnashed his teeth at me;
my adversary sharpens his eyes against me" (16:7-9; cf. 11-17).
As with Calvinism, Job is attributing to God the stuff Satan does. Calvinists don't want to say this, of course. But they deny it only by an illogical insistence: God ordains all things "in such a way" that HE is not responsible for the evil he ordains. Job (and people in great pain in general) sees past the sophistry.
"With violence he seizes my garment;
He graps me by the collar of my tunic" (30:18)
Touching.
When God shows up in chs 38-41,he chastises Job and his friends for their arrogance. NONE of them know anything about the complexity of the universe, he proclaims. (Calvinists often accuse Open Theists of not accepting mystery. In fact, THEY are the one's who claim to know so much about God they can say he controls all things). God doesn't say, "I can do whatever I want" in his monologue. He rather points to the vastness of the cosmos he alone created (ch.38) and appeals to the cosmic forces of evil he must contend with (Behemoth, ch. 40 and Leviathan, ch. 41).
This is why (NOTE THIS) Job REPENTS of his attitude throughout the book. He confesses he "uttered what I did not understand." (42:3).
In my view, then, the book of Job is there to teach us to NOT assail God in the face of adversity -- NOT because God "has the right" to bring evil on us, but because we know so little about the cosmos. Life seems utterly arbitrary because we know next to nothing about anything. The cosmos -- filled as it is with free agents (including cosmic forces) who can rebell against God -- is too complex for us to get our puny minds around. (And God never does tell Job about Satan, the nemesis in the poetic prologue of this epic drama). Why evil happens to one person and not another IS a mystery -- but it is not a mystery of God's character. It is rather a mystery of the nearly infinitely complex cosmos we live in.
God's CHARACTER is the one variable in the equation we DO know. "If you see me [Jesus], you see the Father" (Jn 14:9-10). God is love. "All God's ways are just." There is "no deceit" in him at all (Duet 32:4). "God is light and in him there is no darkness" (I Jn. 1:5). His "eyes are too pure to behold evil" [let alone ordain it!] (Hab. 1:13). He "does not willingly afflict, or grieve anyone" (Lam 3:33)-- let alone ordain multitudes to hell! He rather "longs to be gracious" to siners (Isa. 30:18). He wants to save everybody -- EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING HE CREATES -- and pleads with them to turn to him (Isa 65:2; Ezek. 18:30-32; Hos 11:7f; I Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3: 9). But people can, and do, freely "reject God's purpose for themselves." (Lk 7:30).
GOD is the one who tells us all this about himself. This isn't the rantings of a sentimental Open theist. And because God tells us this about himself, we are right to seek to "justify" God in the face of evil in the world. All we are doing, Meph, is getting rid of bad theology. If people never explicitly or implicitly laid the blame for evil on God, we wouldn't have Open Theists (and others) explaining how they are mistaken.
I rest my case.
Blessings friend.
Back to bed time for me.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/08/00 3:55 PM
Mephi Responds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, peeps. Ok. This post is going to be covering a couple of posts, so excuse the length (Yeah, right...as if you're not used to it with ME...LOL )
**************
ON BESO'S FIRST POST
Beso said: "Yes we must TRUST God -- even when he providentially allows us to undergo suffering. But we trust him because we believe he is GOOD. And when we trust him to be GOOD, we must believe that HIS "goodness" is something like OUR "goodness." Otherwise calling him "good" means nothing more than calling him "evil." If we call God "good" while attributing behavior to him that is "evil" when anyone else does it, our word "good" has no meaning. We cannot trust him."
and "Testwaters (or whatever his alias is) is consistent with Reformed theology in concluding that God is not "good." Mephi:
I understand your concern. One of my growing interests is moral and ethical theory. I will assume that you are in some way familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma, as you have implicitly mentioned it. This ties in highly with the nominalism vs. realism thing that G-D-G mentioned in another post. I will not go into the obvious need to define our terms, especially the ambiguous term "good", nor the assumptions that determine those definitions. For the sake of simplicity, I will henceforth use a very popularized understanding of the concept of "good" that I feel that you will be able to accept. It's probably best that I clear some things up as far as my view. Long time ago, I made a post referring to a philosopher of religion, Michael Sudduth. He had done a paper asking this question: Is it Coherent to Suppose that God is both Morally Good and "Above Morality"? He answers in the affirmative, and I find that I agree with his main thesis and answer. The following is a short, but comprehensive statement. Some aspects of it would probably need to be explained more and I'll do that later, as time allows. I affirm this: God is above good and evil, by the very nature of his being sole creator of a melioristic universe. It is absurd to refer to God as "all-good" (as many people understand the term) and acknowledge the vast amount of evil in the world, without in some way either 1) turning to nominalism (William of Ockham and, in some ways, Gordon Clark style) which tends to reduce the whole argument to tautological statements about God's morality [ex. God's acts are God's acts] or 2) doing violence to the very notion of "good". I do think that, given a type of natural theology that looks at the life-affirming paradigms that promote human fluoring and the amelioration of suffering, we can see by Creation something of God's character, as far as what human beings should be doing to promote life, health, and wholeness. I also believe that God's self-revealing acts in history, including the supreme revelation of God, Jesus the Christ, show that God is FOR the "good". In sum, though God is the ultimate originator and controller of both good AND evil, He reveals His nature to be FOR the good and AGAINST the evil and sin prevalent in the world, and encourages us likewise. Again, this statement is a LOT more profound than it immediately lets on and is the product of months upon months of contemplation, reading, and prayer. This theological construct allows for the complete sovereignty of God while explaining the existence of evil. If you want to further discuss it, that's cool. But I'm warning you in advance, the explanations can quite deep. If you don't like going into a lot of philosophical and theological nuances, then we'd best leave it at this.
**********************
Beso said: "If we call God "good" while attributing behavior to him that is "evil" when anyone else does it, our word "good" has no meaning. We cannot trust him."
Mephi: Hmmm...it is my contention that Job believed this way:
"Right now, it seems like I am being heavily afficted by God. I don't know what I've done wrong. I know that it is God who's in control of all. This can't be happening to me without him knowing about it. Why me, man!?!? It feels like crap, but to WHOM else will I turn for help? WHOM else can I entrust my life to BUT God?"
This theme of enduring trust sounds kind of familiar to me...
John 6:66-68 (After the hard sayings of Jesus)
"From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. 'You do not want to leave too, do you?' Jesus asked the Twelve.
Simon Peter answered him, 'Lord, TO WHOM SHALL WE GO? You have the words of eternal life.'"
The bottom line, my friend, is just what I said earlier. Where else are you going to go? What's your option OTHER than trusting the Lord of All? We deal with a God that we see blesses us with health, life, and stuff like that. And at the other end, we see some evils in life so grotesque, that it sometimes calls some our most fundamental, dearly-held beliefs into question. I would encourage all readers to get a copy of Philip Yancey's newest work "Reaching for the Invisible God." I find his brutal honesty, with respect to what we are discussing here, to be quite insightful. **********************
Beso said: "You quote Job and recommend his attitude as one we should follow."
Mephi: I surely did say this. And for good reason. Job's unswerving trust in God regardless of circumstances is a very commendable quality. You disagree?
**********************
Beso said: "But unwilling to accept that he deserved his suffering, he correctly concluded that GOD WAS NOT GOOD."
Mephi: With all due respect, my friend, this is patently incorrect. One of the OTHER reasons why I said that we need more people like Job is the fact that he was HONEST with his feelings. He gave vent to them, instead of trying to hide them behind some false piety. He said exactly what he felt. If you say that in this, he concluded that God was not good, then you'd better be prepared to charges the Psalmists and Jeremiah, the prophet with the same crime. Some of the remarks made by these people were of the SAME spirit as Job's statements. Jeremiah 20 7-8
"O LORD, you deceived; me, and I was deceived you overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long; everyone mocks me. Whenever I speak, I cry out proclaiming violence and destruction. So the word of the LORD has brought me insult and reproach all day long."
(EVERYONE should know this one...)
Psalm 22:1-2
A psalm of David. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent.
Evil was prevailing against them, and it sucked. It felt like God himself was against them "as like unto" an enemy. But do you really think that ANY of these people concluded that God was evil? By no means. They were given vent to their emotions, NOT challenging the goodness or righteousness of God. Job was doing essentially the SAME thing. Now, look at ALL your scriptures from Job in your second post and tell me that it doesn't fit the paradigm I'm talking about. I hope this comes abundantly clear to you.
**********************
ON BESO'S SECOND POST:
Beso says: "He points out that evangelicals always appeal to this verse (Jn 9:1-5) to justify their "all things controlled by God" philosophy -- despite Jesus consistently attributing this to Satan and coming against it in God's name! -- and THIS verse doesn't even say what they assume it says." "Now, for all ease-droppers, the issue between me and Meph is this: when Job says "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away..." (1.21) should we take this as an attitude all believers should have? Meph says yes, and uses this against Open theists' tendency to want to justify God in the face of evil."
Mephi: Ok. I'll be cool about this. This is what I get from your statement:
"From what Mephi is saying, we, like Job, should accept ALL things as being from God and, in doing so, accept them all as good."
If I have mistook you, forgive me. If I haven't, then I think we have some serious miscommunication. I would have liked it if you would have tried to get some clarification on my meaning if you didn't understand or present your understanding of my view as such. At any rate, let me clear the air. I am NOT advocating pious resignation to all events in a believer's life. This was not my intent of using Job. What I was advocating was the fact that he gave glory to God in ALL things, even though he recognized a theological quandary that would plague him later. Moreover, he didn't charge God with wrongdoing. He didn't even do this later. He made explicit statements about how he felt that God was nearly his enemy, but he NEVER made a statement stating that God had NO RIGHT to do whatever he was doing. These are the qualities that I saw as admirable in that particular verse I quoted, in the context of the entire book of Job. So, what did Mephi actually mean? He meant this: "A person of faith deals with existential struggles with honesty, but NEVER in a manner where God is accountable to humanity." It is my contention that some theologians who are dealing with theodicy are not merely trying to understand evil in the light of an understanding of God. (which is what a TRUE theodicy should be doing) They are, in essence, trying to make God accountable to the evil that we see here on earth, and do so by reconstructing God in such a way that justifies him IN OUR EYES. This is what I find deplorable. This is what I mean when I say that "God doesn't need to be justified." Hope this makes this crystal clear.
**********************
Beso says: "In my reading, the central point of this great book is to teach us that BOTH Job and his "friends" are wrong, for basically the same reason. They arrogantly think they know so much about the universe that they can trace all evil back to God. The friends work out this assumption to mean that Job DESERVES his suffering. Since Job (along with the reader) knows that he doesn't deserve this suffering, he works it out to mean that God is unjust."
Mephi: Needless to say, I highly disagree with your take on Job. I've not seen such a take on it on any Old Testament book that I've yet read. I was wondering...how did you come up with this?
**********************
Beso says: "Would you recommend believers to assume THIS theolgical position, Meph?" (with reference to Job talking about God)
Mephi: LOL YES, I would. First of all, let's not forget the ENTIRE reason that this stuff is going on is because God thought that Job was righteous. Let's not forget that. Obviously, God saw something in Job of great faith and character. Second, I recommend that ALL people stop being punks when it comes to dealing with God. Job gave vent to how he felt. He NEVER disavowed God's sovereignty, but he spoke his feelings. This is definitely what I like. The main issue with Job at the end was just like the rest of us. Sometimes we mire ourselves so much in self-pity that we begin to somehow feel that God OWES us something. That's when stuff gets twisted.
**********************
Beso says: "God doesn't say, "I can do whatever I want" in his monologue. He rather points to the vastness of the cosmos he alone created (ch.38) and appeals to the cosmic forces of evil he must contend with (Behemoth, ch. 40 and Leviathan, ch. 41)."
Mephi: Are you serious?
Job 38:1-4
Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand."
Job 42:1-6
Then Job replied to the LORD: "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?' Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. "You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.' My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes."
Hmmm...now let's look at this. How did JOB understand God? It seems to me that Job said this..
"God, I see that everything's in your hands and that your will stands. There's a LOT of stuff that I don't know that you do know. I was certainly speaking out of turn."
What gives you the impression that Job understood God's monologue this to mean this:
"Look here, Job. You just don't know what I have to deal with up here with this Leviathan and stuff. You just chill out."
I don't see it, man. There's nothing in Job's response that would ellicit what you saying. But I could VERY well see if someone wanted to read spiritual warfare into this how they could.
**********************
Beso said:
"In my view, then, the book of Job is there to teach us to NOT assail God in the face of adversity -- NOT because God "has the right" to bring evil on us, but because we know so little about the cosmos. Life seems utterly arbitrary because we know next to nothing about anything. The cosmos -- filled as it is with free agents (including cosmic forces) who can rebell against God -- is too complex for us to get our puny minds around. (And God never does tell Job about Satan, the nemesis in the poetic prologue of this epic drama). Why evil happens to one person and not another IS a mystery -- but it is not a mystery of God's character. It is rather a mystery of the nearly infinitely complex cosmos we live in."
Mephi:
I would almost agree with you. I believe the Job is there to teach us not to assail God because we know so little, as you've said. But there's two BIG problems I have with your view. First of all, you seem to be reading Open View Theism into Job. There is no real way that you could get what you've stated from Job ITSELF. Second, though Job learns about his lack of knowledge and God's sovereignty, the issue is ULTIMATELY about authority. You know that and I know that. God's statement implicitly states:
"I know stuff you don't know by virtue of who I am. You don't have the RIGHT to feel obligated to having answers" It seems that you may be too stuck on trying to oppose any type of deterministic sounding view of sovereignty that you are not really thinking out all the implications of the text itself.
**********************
Beso said:
God's CHARACTER is the one variable in the equation we DO know. "If you see me [Jesus], you see the Father" (Jn 14:9-10). God is love. "All God's ways are just." There is "no deceit" in him at all (Duet 32:4). "God is light and in him there is no darkness" (I Jn. 1:5). His "eyes are too pure to behold evil" [let alone ordain it!] (Hab. 1:13). He "does not willingly afflict, or grieve anyone" (Lam 3:33)-- let alone ordain multitudes to hell! He rather "longs to be gracious" to siners (Isa. 30:18). He wants to save everybody -- EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING HE CREATES -- and pleads with them to turn to him (Isa 65:2; Ezek. 18:30-32; Hos 11:7f; I Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3: 9). But people can, and do, freely "reject God's purpose for themselves." (Lk 7:30). Mephi:
Do you realize that I could put your words directly into the mouth of a Universalist with no problem? Just wondering...anyway....
I understand all this stuff about the character of God. And I have, in my own theology, dealt with this (Above) The issue that I have is that, MUCH too often, I see that people overemphasize one attribute of God to the distortion, and sometimes exclusion, of others. Marcion was the extreme example of this. But we have to admit that, to a lesser degree, we have many theologians today who are practically doing the same thing. I think that Lion-Lamb understands the concept of complementarity. You know the way that we hold two seemingly mutually exclusive explanations in dynamic tension because the evidence will allow us to do nothing else. This is how we deal with our explanations of how energy can act like particles AND waves at the same time. Using complementarity, you take all the evidence you have and try to use it to the best of your ability WITHOUT negating any of it for the sake of simplicity. This is what I've attempted to do in my theology. I believe it's the same with Lion-Lamb and what he's been saying.
Remember what I said. IF God has indeed predestinated all things, are you willing to say that the life, death, burial, and ressurection of Christ is NOT the supreme revelation of God's love to mankind? That it is NOT the most powerful thing that has happened on this planet? That His work did NOT provide our salvation and reconciliation to God? Remember what I said before. To say that God's predestination devalues Christ's work has ENORMOUS ramifications. Are you really willing to say that?
**********************
SUMMING UP
I must respectfully say that I believe you reading of Job to be somewhat questionable and your implications from that reading, even more so. You jumped the gun saying that Job thought God was not good. You seem to be driven to go against the "all-controlling" notion of God, so much so that you are reading in ideas in opposition in places without warrant. But, hey, this is just my opinion. I hope that this is not taken personal, because it's not meant to be. Let's keep all this in perspective. It's all about Christ Jesus, exalting Him in all things, and becoming more like Him, through the aid of the Holy Spirit's work in our lives. Whether we believe in Open View Theism or not, we all agree on these things. Let's be firm in our theological convictions, but let's also keep the main thing the main thing. Dang, this was long...LOL I'll catch up with y'all much later.
Caught up in the wonderful rapture of His loving, yet awesome embrace,
Mephi2K
P.S:
To Beso...the word is "eavesdropping" Just serving my duty as an anal-retentive pedant. LOL
To Lion-Lamb...You rock, man. You and I have to talk more. Holla back...
To G-D-G...Cool stuff about your choice on seminary. Would you do me a favor and email me sometime? I'd like to get with you on some things...including Batman
To Doc...The Analogy is on its way...
To ALL: Mephi's got some MAD finals to go through this next week. He humbly asks for your ardent prayers for strength, wisdom, and resolve. (Yes, I believe in the efficacious power of prayer, and being protected against evil forces...LOL) Thanks, y'all!!!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/08/00 11:02 AM
RE: Job as a consistent Calvinist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memphi has addressed much of what I would have said, had I offered a response to your note, Beso.
If I begin to make my presence scarce on this forum, it's for two basic reasons: (1) the busy-ness of life; and (2) the seeming pointlessness of these discussions. Scripture and careful reading of Scripture do not seem to hold very high places in much of these discussions. When you, Beso, read John's Gospel and Job as you do in your note, I wonder what could possibly keep me in this discussion. You and I seem to be not only on two different tracks but also heading in opposite directions. I have found this to be true in my interaction with others here, also. I find that this characterizes the entire open theism movement.
I came. I tried. I failed. Now I will make my presence scarce and expend my energy where challenges are received with serious engagement; where biblical appeals are not easily brushed aside or ignored; where people do not get away with imputing to Job things he did not say; where people are willing to acknowledge that God tells us plainly that his purposes include evil; where people are willing to bow to this God in humble submission, recognizing that we are but his creatures and have no right to demand of him a full explanation of himself and of his ways.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
trosie
12/08/00 12:11 PM
RE: Job as a consistent Calvinist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Beso:
Amidst the disagreement there seems to be in the interpretation of the Book of Job, I want to express to you my gratitude for your last posting, especially where you said: "God's CHARACTER is the one variable in the equation we DO know. 'If you see me [Jesus], you see the Father' (Jn.14:9-10). God is love. 'All God's ways are just.'..."
I personally needed to be reminded once again that God's character is depicted in the person of Jesus. After talking with some friends last night about the horrible things some children are exposed to (child abuse...), I was struggling with WHY God allows little children, or anyone for that matter, to go through such horrid situations. I was thinking that even if God doesn't know all the details of the future, as Open Theists believe, He does know all the possibilities that are possibly awaiting each person in their lives, thus I was concluding from this that indirectly He does have a hand in the bad things that happen to people, BUT THEN I know that there is a spiritual war going on which means He allows bad things to happen but DOESN'T orchestrate them. God has to work amongst the evil that man can choose to do. Anyway, I REALLY needed to be reminded that we can see God's character when we look to the person of Jesus. Thank you for writing so late last night because it was good for more reasons than you might have thought. It helped a sister who was struggling with understanding the character of God
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TestWaters
12/08/00 1:57 PM
RE: Consistent x-ist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, again!
I can't let this go without saying it. By definition, there is no such thing as a consistent x-ist. You can substitute any system of theology--it won't be consistent because it's a system. God isn't a system. He's person.
Sorry--I just need to stick that in whenever I can. I see that there are holes in my system and I find that most of the time the only people worth really engaging in conversation are those who realize that their system has holes in it also.
Of course, that's not a reason to pack our bags and quit trying--but it sure helps keep me humble.
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:51 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 |
|
|