 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/14/2003 9:54 PM (GMT -6) |   | Polycarp: Would you explain what you mean by the following expression?--"eternal, unconditional, and efficacious decree." And, if you can take a few moments and if you are favorably disposed, would you explain how you understand what Calvinists mean by the same expression?
Tom: Did I say “eternal”? Hmm. I mean that’s OK. But what I meant was “exhaustive.” The three characteristics of God’s decree, as I understand Calvinism, are that the decree is: 1) exhaustive, 2) efficacious, and 3) unconditional.
By “exhaustive” I understand “whatsoever comes to pass” or “whatever happens.” It follows that the decree is eternal if all that happens is decreed.
By “efficacious” I understand “whatever happens happens by virtue of the fact that it was decreed by God.” What happens is the “effect” of God’s having decreed it.
By “unconditional" I understand that “God’s decree is not conditioned on anything outside of God himself.” God decreed nothing as a response to something outside of God.
Taken together an exhaustive, efficacious, and unconditional decree amounts to theological determinism. The crucial element is, of course, the unconditionality of God’s decree.
Am I close?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/15/2003 1:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Fred: Yea. "Eternal" decree sounds kind of creepy. Like God said something and is then obligated to obey that command: as though the command stands on its own ontology. I MUCH prefer the concept of foreknowledge.
Tom: Except in the case of an exhaustive, efficacious, and unconditional decree foreknowledge is based on that decree and not visa versa. God knows what will happen in the future because he knows what he's decreed (he knows himself).
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/16/2003 2:25 AM (GMT -6) | | I marvel as I have watched open theism evolve throughout the last twenty years. Those who object to it, critique it, demonstrate its flaws and inconsistencies, and show how it fails to account for Scripture’s witness concerning God’s likeness, these poor folks cannot make any advances because open theism is mutating constantly. When its opponents cut off an appendage, open theism sprouts a new one. No one can keep up with open theism’s mutations, not even its advocates. When open theism’s failings and inconsistencies are challenged and demonstrated in published critique after published critique, its advocates don’t engage the conversation with reasoned responses. Numerous published critiques continually remain unanswered. And here, in this forum, the response is to say, “Open theism is a NEW movement. Therefore, not ALL of its points are worked out. Give it time” (Honorman). Time is not the issue. Demonstration of consistency and coherence with Scripture is what critiques expect from open theists. Is that too much to ask?
In this note I will respond to one of open theism's mutations. Open theism emerged upon the evangelical scene as the remedy for the alleged notion that historic Christian theism advocates a God who is coercive, who coerces humans against their wills. So John Sanders caricatures historic Christian belief concerning God’s saving grace as “divine rape because it involves nonconsensual control: the will of one is forced on the will of the other” (The God Who Risks, 240). He tells us, as if Christian theologians did not believe this: “The love of Jesus elicits our loving response and motivates our imitation of his love” (246). Then he repeats for good measure his chiding caricature: “God does not rape us, even for our own good” (246). But as criticism of open theism increased, open theism mutated. Greg Boyd, in Satan and the Problem of Evil, argues, “God’s design to have creatures who are capable of moral decision making requires a sort of covenant of noncoercion with each of them. . . . This means that his response to their evil choices must, under ordinary circumstances, stop short of coercion” (p. 183). Yet, as I’ve pointed out earlier, Greg also says that this “does not entail that God can never exercise coercive power in his interactions with free creatures" (p. 185). Greg does not seem to make the same restriction as we will see that TGB makes concerning this coercion. My point, of course, is that open theism has mutated. At its beginning, open theism was going to rescue Christianity from God's alleged coercion within the historic Christian views of God. Strangely, while historic Christian theology has never advocated the notion that God coerces humans against their wills but has affirmed the opposite, open theism now advocates that God, at times, does coerce humans against their wills. This is truly strange, but this is the problem open theism’s critics encounter. Who can anticipate open theism’s next mutation?
Now to respond to the underlined portion of your comment below.
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
RD: If anyone at all is robbed of their free will at any instance, i would argue that the entire open theist view fails.
Tom: Well, there we have it friends. The entire open view crashes to the ground. And so simple.  But in truth the open view will be around in spite of this argument I think. For all the open view requires at rock bottom is freedom in the morally responsible choices we make. Libertarian freedom doesn’t mean God cannot step in and determine any non-moral choice he would like to. He can remove the freedom of Cyrus’ parents in naming him Cyrus. Big deal. He can also remove Cyrus’ freedom and determine his vocation as King. But these are choices over which God will not hold Cyrus nor his parents morally responsible.
You say, “For all the open view requires at rock bottom is freedom in the morally responsible choices we make.” Then you say, “Libertarian freedom doesn’t mean God cannot step in and determine any non-moral choice he would like to.” I could launch into an extended discourse about the dichotomy you have cut between what you call “morally responsible choices” and “non-moral choices.” (I will try to contain it to a few lines.)
First, may I suggest that you intended to distinguish between choices that are “moral in nature” (e.g., Should I lie or tell the truth?) and choices that are “amoral in nature” (e.g., Should I drive a Mazda or a Ford?)? As you have expressed the distinction, you have confused categories because you used two very different grammatical constructions (“morally responsible choices” & “non-moral choices”). Scripture makes it clear that even “amoral choices” must be done in a “morally responsible” manner. Otherwise, what does Paul mean when he says, “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God—even as I try to please everybody in every way.” (1 Cor 10:31-32)? Does it matter whether you choose to eat lobster or chicken? Does it matter whether you choose to drink Diet Coke or a merlot? No. These things, in themselves, are amoral. However, not one single person on this earth can choose to eat lobster amorally. Either one eats lobster to the glory of God or one sins against God. We do none of our actions amorally. Every act, whether we eat or breath or lie down to sleep or rise up to work is a moral act. Not one of our actions is ever morally neutral, even though many things we engage, in themselves are amoral.
Second, since it is impossible for us to act “amorally” even with regard to things that in themselves are “amoral,” every act we perform entails “moral responsibility.” Does it matter whether I name my daughter “Laura” or “Ashley” or “Sylvia”? No. But my act of naming my daughter is not a morally neutral action any more than my eating spinach or broccoli is a morally neutral act. Therefore, the point I am making is that your proposal that naming of a child is an amoral act and therefore God can override the parents’ freedom in the naming of Cyrus fails. It is not as you propose. The parents freely named their son, and they were accountable for naming their son. God did not coerce the parents to name their son “Cyrus.” Christian theology rejects the notion that God ever coerces anyone to do anything. God does not coerce. Anyone who represents historic Christian theology as embracing the notion that God coerces his creatures to get them to accomplish his purposes fails badly to understand historic Christian beliefs. God does not coerce anyone. God never will coerce anyone. Tyrants coerce. God is not a tyrant.
Now, since your separation between “amoral choices” and “moral choices” does not stand up to Scripture, let’s ponder how the Scriptures portray God’s action in relation to human sinful action in such a manner that the sinning human carries out God’s action and at the same time God holds the sinning human fully accountable for his wicked deeds and God punishes the sinning human for those wicked deeds.
I’m sure you’re familiar with this passage of Scripture. Carefully observe the text in bold. These bold segments make it clear that God will execute his wrath upon Israel by way of Assyria. Yet, after Assyria has executed God’s wrath upon Israel, God will execute his wrath upon Assyria. Why? Scripture says, “When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say, ‘I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes.’”
Isaiah 10:5-19
“Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger,
in whose hand is the club of my wrath!
6 I send him against a godless nation,
I dispatch him against a people who anger me,
to seize loot and snatch plunder,
and to trample them down like mud in the streets.
7 But this is not what he intends,
this is not what he has in mind;
his purpose is to destroy,
to put an end to many nations.
8 ‘Are not my commanders all kings?’ he says.
9 ‘Has not Calno fared like Carchemish?
Is not Hamath like Arpad,
and Samaria like Damascus?
10 As my hand seized the kingdoms of the idols,
kingdoms whose images excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria—
11 shall I not deal with Jerusalem and her images
as I dealt with Samaria and her idols?’”
12 When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say, “I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes. 13 For he says:
“‘By the strength of my hand I have done this,
and by my wisdom, because I have understanding.
I removed the boundaries of nations,
I plundered their treasures;
like a mighty one I subdued
their kings.
14 As one reaches into a nest,
so my hand reached for the wealth of the nations;
as men gather abandoned eggs,
so I gathered all the countries;
not one flapped a wing,
or opened its mouth to chirp.’”
15 Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it,
or the saw boast against him who uses it?
As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up,
or a club brandish him who is not wood!
16 Therefore, the Lord, the LORD Almighty,
will send a wasting disease upon his sturdy warriors;
under his pomp a fire will be kindled
like a blazing flame.
17 The Light of Israel will become a fire,
their Holy One a flame;
in a single day it will burn and consume
his thorns and his briers.
18 The splendor of his forests and fertile fields
it will completely destroy,
as when a sick man wastes away.
19 And the remaining trees of his forests will be so few
that a child could write them down.
In other words, when Assyria devastated Israel, Assyria was the rod in God’s hand to punish Israel. Did Assyria willingly destroy Israel? Yes. Did God coerce Assyria to sack and obliterate Israel? No, of course not. God does not work by coercion (contrary to open theism’s acceptance of it as in your idea of “non-moral choices”). Assyria willingly did what God purposed for Assyria to do, namely sack Israel. And, when Assyria was finished destroying Israel, God punished Assyria, not for punishing Israel, but for punishing Israel with arrogance, for failing to acknowledge that Assyria lives and moves and has its being only at the good pleasure of God who brought Assyria into its national power and who raised Assyria as an ax to strike Israel.
So, the Lord speaks against Assyria, “Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it, or the saw boast against him who uses it? As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up, or a club brandish him who is not wood!” [Hear the echoes of Romans 9:19-20?] Carefully observe that “Assyria” is the ax and rod. And carefully observe that God holds Assyria (the ax and rod) accountable to their sinful and arrogant manner as they carried out God’s appointed purpose for Assyria to be the rod by which he punished Israel. Neither Isaiah nor the Lord flinches at the analogy as if the analogy makes God accountable for Assyria’s sin. The Lord used Assyria as the ax to punish Israel. The Lord used Babylon as the ax to punish Assyria.
Isaiah 10:5-19 devastates open theism’s foundational and undemonstrated assumption. At its foundation, open theism takes for granted that there can be no real personal relation between God and the human apart from maintaining that God’s absolute sovereign authority is restricted in proportion to the freedom of the human. So, open theism assumes that either the human acts personally in a certain time and place or God acts personally in a certain time and place, but that they cannot both simultaneously and personally act at the same point of contact. Isaiah 10:5-19 puts the lie to such a notion. In this passage, God makes it clear that Assyria acts personally and accountably and that at the same time, Assyria does precisely what God purposed for Assyria to do, namely sack Israel. Assyria is the ax or rod in God’s hand, yet, after God has used Assyria to punish Israel, God will punish Assyria, not for punishing Israel, but for failing to acknowledge the Lord as God when they punished Israel.
May I speak with prophetic clarity and urgency to all? This passage of Scripture strikes at the very root of open theism. Open theism is founded upon the same assumption upon which Assyria acted against Israel. Open theism fails to acknowledge the Lord God as the one who brings about his purposes in and through our every thought and deed and who at the same time holds us fully accountable for our every thought and deed. It is both dangerous and wrong to assert that if God is active in our actions, then we are not responsible for our actions. Nothing humans do is independent of God’s doing. Whether we breathe or eat or drink or sleep or punish a child, we do it as God’s agents. It is not sinful to punish my child with the rod. In fact to do so is to obey God (Prov 13:24; 22:15; 23:13-14). In my act of punishing my child, God is also active to discipline my child. However, to punish my child and not acknowledge that I am God’s agent in the act is to sin against both God and my child. To punish my child in uncontrollable and ungodly wrath is to sin against both God and my child. Of course, the sin would not be spanking my child but doing so in ungodly wrath.
So, at the end of the day, the point is this: God’s actions and ours are completely and inseparably enmeshed and utterly inseparable though distinguishable. God holds us accountable for every act we do, whether we breathe or eat or drink or name children or punish children or whatever we do. Air is an amoral thing in itself. Yet, our breathing air into our lungs is not an amoral action, nor is it an action we do independent of God. I breathe, but God mercifully enables me to breathe. Either we inhale and exhale to God’s glory or we sin. Either we breathe and acknowledge that our breathing is entirely at the sustaining mercy of God or we sin against God. This is how mundane or commonplace the issues of Christian faith are that open theism challenges.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/16/2003 3:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Polycarp: Open theism is founded upon the same assumption upon which Assyria acted against Israel.
Tom: It is at least good to know that you pray for us and our reconciliation to God. I for one appreciate your prayers.
Blessings
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/16/2003 3:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Polycarp: Open theism is founded upon the same assumption upon which Assyria acted against Israel.
Tom: It is at least good to know that you pray for us and our reconciliation to God. I for one appreciate your prayers.
Blessings
Tom
Instead of offering a substantive response, you turn to mockery, another characteristic response from open theists to anyone who lands significant, biblical, kind, and compassionate criticism of open theism's foundational and governing assumption.
I do pray for open theists. I also appeal to open theists to repent and to acknowledge that God upholds them by his mercy as they insist upon committing the Assyrians' sin of failing to affirm that God mercifully upholds them while they say what they do about him.
You won't have to answer to me. I have no authority over you. You will have to answer to the Lord who punished the Assyrians.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/16/2003 4:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Polycarp: Instead of offering a substantive response, you turn to mockery...
Tom: You, my friend, couldn't be more wrong. I was entirely sincere in what I said. I honestly appreciate your prayers and, given your understanding of my views, appreicate your prayer for my journey. You stood in judgment of my motives and were wrong.
Looks like I'm not the only one that needs to repent.
Polycarp: ...another characteristic response from open theists to anyone who lands significant, biblical, kind, and compassionate criticism of open theism's foundational and governing assumption.
Tom: I didn't respond, Polycarp, because (again, honestly) I am super busy and just can't respond to stuff like I used to. You seem to be a sharp person and able to figure out the search feature. Plus there are other folks who are availble to engage your points in detail. Sorry I can't stand in with you nose to nose to spar right now. Anyone around here can tell you I don't mind doing so. Just tooooo busy. I can only really pursue one issue at a time in depth, and this is not it. Sorry.
I asked John Sanders to stop in and comment on this thread. He tried to the other day but the site was down. Let's hope he can make time to visit.
Polycarp: You won't have to answer to me. I have no authority over you. You will have to answer to the Lord who punished the Assyrians.
Tom: As will we all Polycarp, as will we all.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/16/2003 5:47 AM (GMT -6) | | I, too, appreciate your prayers, Polycarp. I do not see the "devastation" of Isaiah as you do, so I am unconcerned with your proclamations. "These poor folks," by and large have not made any headway because they have failed to give a good account of the verses that open theists struggle with, instead feeling the need to dismiss them with a kind of "what is the fuss about" and, "why don't you just accept out explanation of them" attitude. I would say it is time for our opponents to adknowledge that we are not going to go away and to make an attempt to take us seriously rather than quote one scripture and say, "there," as you seem to be doing.
(jump on the website, quote a verse or two, make them open theists see the error of their ways, all in time not to miss lunch.)
Why not stop trying to "psych" us and accuse us of not giving enough glory to God and simply debate with us. Stop "marveling" (which, I guess, makes you an "expert" on open theism, since you've watched it for twenty years) and simply engage. Get down from your high "knowledge" of how wrong we are and make an effort to understand what we believe rather judge us on why we believe.
Now that you have devastated our beliefs with prophetic clarity you may rest, assured in the knowledge that you have told us what is. However, I will stay with my mutations. Most of the Christians I know, while having the truth, recognized that their view of how God is working in their life is constantly changing and realize that who God is is never a completed subject.
I've read them all, Poly, all the criticism. By and large they don't take the subject seriously. Until they do, those of us who realize how incomplete we are, those of us who do not feel the need to destroy our opponents will keep on searching for the complete picture of God, even if we will never find it.
Thank you again for our prayers.
Just remember: open theists recite the same church creeds as you do. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/16/2003 1:12 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Tom: You, my friend, couldn't be more wrong. I was entirely sincere in what I said. I honestly appreciate your prayers and, given your understanding of my views, appreicate your prayer for my journey. You stood in judgment of my motives and were wrong.
Looks like I'm not the only one that needs to repent.
Tom: I didn't respond, Polycarp, because (again, honestly) I am super busy and just can't respond to stuff like I used to. You seem to be a sharp person and able to figure out the search feature. Plus there are other folks who are availble to engage your points in detail. Sorry I can't stand in with you nose to nose to spar right now. Anyone around here can tell you I don't mind doing so. Just tooooo busy. I can only really pursue one issue at a time in depth, and this is not it. Sorry.
Tom
Actually I did not judge your motives, Tom. I made a judgment of what I read based upon what you wrote. Perhaps, if you could not respond with any more depth than you offered, you should have waited until you could instead of offering a dismissive reply to a carefully reasoned and biblically grounded presentation. Your lifting a "choice" line from my extended presentation and your terse and shoulder-shrugging reply to it with words that, under any normal circumstances had the ring of sarcasm, led me to conclude that you resorted to mockery. Though you deny mocking, I have read and re-read your note several times, and it still seems sarcastic to me. If you meant no mockery, you surely did not avoid the form, style, and manner of sarcasm. Sarcasm, even on bulletin boards, is not difficult to detect. (I know, for I engage in it occasionally, too.) But, I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Will you offer a substantive response to my careful and close discussion? Or, is the discussion over? Should I pack it in now? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/16/2003 1:24 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by honorman
I, too, appreciate your prayers, Polycarp. I do not see the "devastation" of Isaiah as you do, so I am unconcerned with your proclamations. . . . I would say it is time for our opponents to adknowledge that we are not going to go away and to make an attempt to take us seriously rather than quote one scripture and say, "there," as you seem to be doing.
(jump on the website, quote a verse or two, make them open theists see the error of their ways, all in time not to miss lunch.)
Why not stop trying to "psych" us and accuse us of not giving enough glory to God and simply debate with us. . . . . I've read them all, Poly, all the criticism. By and large they don't take the subject seriously. Until they do, those of us who realize how incomplete we are, those of us who do not feel the need to destroy our opponents will keep on searching for the complete picture of God, even if we will never find it.
Thank you again for our prayers.
I challenge you, Honorman, to debate what I have posted. Don't cast it aside as if I have simply quoted a Bible verse and presumed that I had landed some devastating blow to open theism's foundational assumptions. I did not do any such thing. Any fair-minded and reasonable person would have to admit that I have offered a carefully presented and reasoned exposition of Isaiah 10 as it exposes a serious flaw that grounds the entire theological project called open theism.
Don't scold me. Debate me. I'm waiting for some open theist to do precisely what you have called upon me to do. Debate the issues. I've raised the issues. Take them on. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/16/2003 5:15 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
We have had several discussions here lately in which the issue of God meting out temporal judgment has been raised. It seems to me quite a leap in logic (particular to a general) to conclude that because God does this in one case (e.g., Is. 10), that ALL wars, destructions, calamities, etc., are therefore by the direct hand of God.
No Open Theist that I am aware of would deny that in some cases God has done precisely what Isaiah 10 says God has done. It is simply our contention that not everything that happens is God's will, in contradistinction to Calvin's Institutes.
You have not addressed the issues of Isaiah 10 that I brought out rather plainly. Deal with the text of Scripture. So you disagree. Demonstrate from Scripture how my exposition is wrong. I challenge you. I challenge anyone.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 8/16/2003 5:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Does Open Theism fail to acknowledge the Lord God as the one who brings about his purposes in and through . . . every thought and deed of mankind and who at the same time holds each person fully accountable for our every thought and deed.
Is it both dangerous and wrong to assert . . . God is active in our actions . . . ?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 8/16/2003 7:57 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Polycarp
You have not addressed the issues of Isaiah 10 that I brought out rather plainly. Deal with the text of Scripture. So you disagree. Demonstrate from Scripture how my exposition is wrong. I challenge you. I challenge anyone.
I realize that you see Isaiah 10 as teaching that God works in this way in all cases; i.e., that God both determines the actions of mankind and at the same time holds them actually responsible for their actions.
I also realize that you think that Isaiah 10 "demolishes" Open Theism.
My contention is simply that you are arguing from a particular to a general, and that this is not logically or hermeneutically sound. Do you really think it is a good idea to argue from a particular to a general?
If I saw any good reason to think that in this passage God was giving an example of how He deals with mankind in each and every instance, then of course I would agree with your conclusion.
However...
My contention is that in cases such as the Isaiah passage you cite, these are cases in which God acts unilaterally by using persons whose character has already been solidified to the extent that they are no longer truly free. (In Satan & the Problem of Evil, Dr. Boyd develops this theme of character solidification in great detail).
To the extent that the Assyrians described in Isaiah 10 had at that point in history already solidified their character, their actions were no longer free, and therefore God using them as pawns, if you will, at that point poses no violation of their moral agency (or libertarian free will), for they have already at that point ceased to be able to use their morally responsible freedom in any way but the way in which they have solidified it.
In other words for every person libertarian free will eventually becomes compatabilistic free will. The longer one chooses a particular pathway of good or evil, the more of a rut they dig for themselves, until eventually they are absolutely unable to do other than continue in the direction they have chosen for themselves.
Further, I realize that you think God punishing Assyria for pride rules out the idea that what Assyria did in this passage was a non-moral choice.
However, this does not necessarily follow, if we realize that God metes out judgment to ALL in all cases according to truth and justice, and that God using Assyria to punish Israel no more absolves Assyria's own guiltiness for its attitude against God in the first place than God punishing Israel in the book of Joshua for the sin at Ai somehow should imply that God was not also intent on punishing the Canaanites for their own guilt as well in that same time period.
This is not unlike the case of a young juvenile delinquent I was once counseling with, who, when I picked him up after he had spent a weekend in jail on a public intoxication charge said, "Ya know, they've got robbers, rapists, murderers, and drug dealers out on the streets, so why would they bother with somebody like me?" To which I could only reply, "The guilt of others in no way removes or even modifies yours."
I realize that you will not be happy with my answer unless I agree with you. Therefore, you will probably just have to stay unhappy with me. And that is certainly okay with me. I am not intending to come across as sarcastic at all; I am simply being direct.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/16/2003 8:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Polycarp-
Here's what a gentleman would say (assuming you're a guy, I don't know):
"Tom, I misjudged your motives and I'm really sorry. THis is an intense discussion and I was really into it. I apologize."
This, instead of defending yourself and further implicating me, is the sort attitude you need to acquire. Giving me the benefit of the doubt? No thanks.
It's hard to apologize in public, I know. BUt you did misjudge me. There was nothing sarcastic in form about my words. I chose the words I did from you because they seemed to depict open theists in their worst possible light--Assyirian-like.
You may not think you need to hear it, but I need to say it: I forgive you.
Take care,
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
The Huguenot
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 8/16/2003 9:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Well, I sort of feel bad just jumping into the conversation, but obviously not bad enough to abstain...
John Earp: Way to step up to the plate and offer a response. I am very impressed. A few thoughts. I'm sure you realize this, and maybe are ok and/or resigned to it, but some of your remarks may leave you open to the critique Polycarp et al use when they say, "open theism is mutating constantly." For instance, when you say, "I realize that you see Isaiah 10 as teaching that God works in this way in all cases," you are implying that you DON'T think this way; i.e., God works in other ways besides His modus operandi portrayed in Isaiah 10. This means that God portrays (at least) bilateral movement and discretion when He relates to His creation. God could act *Isaiah 10* way, or He could act *II Kings 20* way (when He seems to tell Hezekiah he will die, and then tells him he will live). Or another instance is when you say, "God acts unilaterally by using persons whose character has already been solidified to the extent that they are no longer truly free." Again, "...they have ceased to be able to use it [their free will, in the libertarian sense]in any way but the way in which they have solidified it. In other words, libertarian free will becomes compatabilistic free will." I think a reader, and perhaps Polycarp, might read lines like these and think, "Look! There they go again! They're always mutating. You can't pin 'em down on one point for a second! There they go changing their definition of free will again...ad absurdum."
But, I don't know, Mr. Earp. I mean, you really did an honest job of dealing with it. I appreciate your candor at the end of your post, to agree to disagree, but at the same time the points being raised are difficult for OVTheism to deal with carefully. Its difficult when OVTheists have not reached a consensus. That doesn't mean they're still not held accountable for their beliefs. Just because its a "new" theology (tell that to Justin Martyr or Ignatius) doesn't excuse it from theological soundness. If nothing else, the OV must acknowledge its youthful status and pay its dues to the Old Guard.
Finally, I totally agree with you that arguing from the particular to the general is poor logic. However, I am not so sure I see this hermeneutically. For instance, there seem to be several biblical ideas that go this route. Could you explain more? Quite honestly, I just think its a good idea for OVTheists to leave hermeneutics out, since the OV has run roughshod over hermeneutics.
Thanks again for your post. If you have the time, and if you appreciate what I say, take another stab at responding to Polycarp's post.
Tom: Thank you for taking the high road. I am quite curious, and am looking prayerfully forward to your response to Polycarp's monolithic advance. May the Lord bless you in the busy-ness. And give you wisdom as you respond. You too, Mr. Earp.
Fred: By FAR the wisest response to Polycarp's magnum opus. Slainte mor!! 
Honorman: I am absolutely fascinated by what must go in your head as you write your posts. I think I would love to observe you in a large setting, such as a cafeteria, or something...
Tim: I don't mean to leave you out, but...I'm sorry. I'm totally baffled as to what sort of response your post demands.
And finally...Polycarp: Well, sir, you have definitely indebted yourself some awfully lengthly replies with your post. I am very thankful for your message, and am looking forward to the responses it garners. I keenly hope that OTheists will interact with your post on the exegetical, philosophical, and theological edges that you very ably put on the table, without morphing too much and sticking out under the hard questions. After as manly a post as that was, I pray you will undergird it with manly interaction with those on the board (assuming you are a man. Otherwise...that was very, uh, feminine??). Your challenge to the Open camp, I pray, will not go unreceived, for I think a failure to deal with the issues you bring would signify a severe weakness within the position. Excellent. Prepare to continue to labor in love.
For any OVTheists reading, I think a challenge like Polycarp is very good for you, so much so that you could rejoice in it. I would hope all of us would say, "We are seeking to know and defend Truth, not OVTheism, or Calvinism, or premillenialism, or cessationism, etc., but biblicism. We want to know and believe just as Jesus does." So, when a monolithic challenge is issued as Polycarp did so ably, then it is a chance to see how well this idea holds up. It will either make OVTheism stronger as it learns to overcome such an argument, or it will kill OVTheism, which is ok too, since no one wants to support an ignoble philosophy. I hope Polycarp's difficult challenge is an opportunity to thank the Lord for His providence in such a way, and pray for strength to know the Truth.
The Huguenot
SDG
P.S. Thanks, DLW, for encouraging me... | | Back to Top | | |
|
The Huguenot
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 8/16/2003 9:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Holy Buckets!! Your post, Mr. Earp, has drastically altered since I last interacted with it. So, I think to do you justice, I must comment on the new changes I see. Also, you must tell me how you did that. Simply fascinating!
quote:
If I saw any good reason to think that in this passage God was giving an example of how He deals with mankind in each and every instance, then of course I would agree with your conclusion.
But your premise, sir, is implied that there may be different ways (I called it [minimally] "bilateral movements") in which God could relate to men. If your premise is true, I think that this is actually the "scariest" notion within the OV. That God might relate to Abraham other than how He will relate to me is terrifying.
Actually, you don't even need to worry if this is how God "deals with mankind in each and every instance." Polycarp has insisted that this Isaiah 10 passage refers specifically to the notion of the OV. Therefore, you could actually be right in your premise, namely, that God deals in bilateral operations, and yet it would have no bearance on this argument since Polycarp has narrowed the scope to the OV.
In my opinion (take it with salt), you should go back to the text and attempt to beat Polycarp there, at his own game. I'm not sure its possible. Pray over it, and study it. May the Holy Spirit illumine His Word to you.
quote:
...the more of a rut
they dig for themselves, until eventually they are absolutely unable to do other than
continue in the direction they have chosen for themselves.
See, I realize that OVTheists are saying this, but I don't know...I'm still wrestling with it. Help me out here, this is how I read this. You have basically consigned humans to self-predestination, by assigning character determinism to them. However, unless we deny original sin, we must admit that we are born with a fairly deep rut already dug for ourselves. However, this is still in some sense "libertarian" since they previously chose it for themselves. But I think you still end up at the T of TULIP. You still have totally depraved creatures (people are unable to break out of the rut), but it takes a little longer and it is now "free," in some sense. Now it seems that God is no longer risking, being a god of the possible, or even at much of a war. This god merely checks the spreadsheet on each person's rut, sees where it is going, and reacts. I feel like that's a stones throw from classic Arminianism. I'm trying for the life of me to figure out how Boyd or someone would show me my error here, but its late.
quote:
Further, I realize that you think God punishing Assyria for pride rules out the idea that what Assyria did in this passage was a non-moral choice.
However, this does not necessarily follow, if we realize that God metes out judgment to ALL in all cases according to truth and justice, and that God using Assyria to punish Israel no more absolves Assyria's own guiltiness for its attitude against God in the first place than God punishing Israel in the book of Joshua for the sin at Ai somehow should imply that God was not also intent on punishing the Canaanites for their own guilt as well in that same time period.
Do you mean, then, that you think it was a non-moral choice? I'm not sure about how you see a link between Israel and Canaan, and Assyria and Israel. I'm pretty sure most people, and perhaps Polycarp, would agree with you, i.e. Assyria is NOT absolved of its guiltiness for conquering Israel in a prideful manner.
Tom, I'm looking forward to that reply when you get some free time.
The Huguenot
SDG | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 8/17/2003 2:25 AM (GMT -6) | | To The Huguenot,
Polycarp said, "Open theism is founded upon the same assumption upon which Assyria acted against Israel. Open theism fails to acknowledge the Lord God as the one who brings about his purposes in and through our every thought and deed and who at the same time holds us fully accountable for our every thought and deed. It is both dangerous and wrong to assert that if God is active in our actions, then we are not responsible for our actions. Nothing humans do is independent of God’s doing."
Tom said in response to the opening line of the above quote, "It is at least good to know that you pray for us and our reconciliation to God. I for one appreciate your prayers."
Therefore, I ask not only Polycarp, and Tom, but all concerned,
Does Open Theism fail to acknowledge the Lord God as the one who brings about his purposes in and through . . . every thought and deed of mankind and who at the same time holds each person fully accountable for our every thought and deed.
Is it both dangerous and wrong to assert . . . God is active in our actions . . . ?
I know words do not always explain fully what I mean, though I would use an abundance of them, so I resort to using fewer anymore.
Imagination projects unreal images out of the mind and seeks to attach reality to them. Faith creates nothing; it simply reckons upon that which is already there. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 8/17/2003 3:13 AM (GMT -6) | | NINE years have now elapsed since Albertus Pighius, the Campanian, a man of evidently phrensied audacity, attempted, at the same time, and in the same book, to establish the free-will of man and to subvert the secret counsel of God, by which He chooses some to salvation and appoints others to eternal destruction. But as he attacked me by name, that he might stab, through my side, holy and, sound doctrine, I have deemed it necessary to curb the sacrilegious madness of the man. At that time, however, being distracted by various engagements, I could not embrace, in one short space of time, the discussion of both subjects; but having published my thoughts upon the former, I promised to consider, when an opportunity should be given, the doctrine of predestination. Shortly after my book on free-will appeared, Pighius died. And that I might not insult a dead dog, I turned my attention to other serious matters. And from that time till now I have always found plenty to do, moreover, as I had already copiously treated of this great point of doctrine, and had set it forth clearly, and confirmed it by solid testimonies of Scripture, this new labour upon it did not seem so absolutely, necessary, but that it might safely be suffered to rest for a time.
But since, at the present day, certain maddened and exulting spirits: strive, after the example of Pighius, with all their might to destroy all that is contained in the Scriptures concerning the free election of the godly and the eternal judgment of the reprobate, I have considered it my duty to prevent this contagion from spreading farther, by collecting and summarily refuting those frivolous objections by which such men delude themselves and others. – John Calvin
http://www.reformed.org/documents/calvin/calvin_predest_2.html#A%20TREATISE
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 8/17/2003 3:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Continued,
Augustine then adds this short sentence: "These are the mighty works of the Lord, shining with perfection in every instance of His will; and so perfect in wisdom, that when the angelic and human nature had sinned--that is, had done not what God willed, but what each nature itself willed--it came to pass that by this same will of the creature, God, though in one sense unwilling, yet accomplished what He willed, righteously and with the height of all wisdom, overruling the evils done, to the damnation of those whom He had justly predestinated to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom He had mercifully predestinated to grace.
Wherefore, as far as these natures themselves were concerned, they did what they did contrary to the will of God; but, as far as the omnipotence of God is concerned, they acted according to His will; nor could they have acted contrary to it. Hence, by their very acting contrary to the will of God, the will of God concerning them was done. So mighty, therefore, are the works of God, so gloriously and exquisitely perfect in every instance of His will, that by a marvellous and ineffable plan of operation peculiar to Himself, as the 'all-wise God,' that cannot be done, without His will, which is even contrary to His will; because it could not be done without His permitting it to be done, which permission is evidently not contrary to His will, but according to, His will."
I have gladly extracted these few things out of many like them in the writings of Augustine, that my readers may clearly see with what a very modest face it is that Pighius represents him as differing from me and makes use of him to support his own errors. I shall, indeed, hereafter occasionally refer to the testimonies of this same holy man in the course of this discussion. – John Calvin
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/17/2003 4:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Polycarp: Tom and John Earp and Tim and Honorman, Imagine the Final Jeopardy tune....
Tom: Oh, is that when you plan on becoming a gentleman?
Tim: Therefore, I ask not only Polycarp, and Tom, but all concerned, Does Open Theism [as Polycarp claims] "...fail to acknowledge the Lord God as the one who brings about his purposes in and through... every thought and deed of mankind and who at the same time holds each person fully accountable for our every thought and deed."
Tom: To fail to do this is to fail to be a compatibilist, nothing more. So of course open theism fails to do this. Traditional Arminians also fail to do this and are, together with open theists, equally the object of Polycarp's comments.
Hey guys, when I said I'm busy and too invested in other threads to get involved in this one, I didn't mean for just a few days. So don't stand there listening to the music for Final Jeopardy too long. If there are those who think Polycarp's "monolithic post" wins the day and scatters open theists on the battle field, then by all means, party down.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| 176 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:58 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 |
|
|