 |
 | 
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/18/2003 4:03 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by JET
Assyria as God’s “rod” is simply a metaphor for the idea that the defeat of Jerusalem by the Assyrians represents divine judgment. The metaphor is not intended to establish systematically the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom. Clearly, if the metaphor is taken too far, it proves much more than compatibilism. Does the axe raise itself above him who swings it? Obviously, no. The axe doesn’t willfully do anything. The only agent involved in the swing of an axe is the one who swings it. The author is not saying that Assyria was literally like an axe in the hand of the one who swings it. How far the metaphor will be taken depends largely on the presuppositions brought to the text. The metaphor can easily be read consistent with compatibilism. However, the rod can also be read simply as a metaphor for God judging Jerusalem by allowing (i.e., not preventing) its defeat by the Assyrians. Indeed, verse 16 reminds us that God could easily stop the Assyrians by purely physical means without exerting compatibilistic influence on the wills of the Assyrians. If God has such power, then it is indeed arrogant of the Assyrian king to think that he could do anything unless God allows it.
IMHO,
JET
JET, carefully read your first sentence again. Now, may I suggest that you read your first sentence out loud? Listen to what your sentence says. You say, “Assyria as God’s ‘rod’ is simply a metaphor for the idea that the defeat of Jerusalem by the Assyrians represent divine judgment. Now, may I suggest that you do the same with your second sentence? The metaphor is not intended to establish systematically the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom. Do you hear it? You are engaging in precisely the fault that open theists routinely toss at theologians who embrace the historic Christian faith concerning God’s providence. In The God Who Risks and in God of the Possible John Sanders and Greg Boyd, respectively, decry us for handling passages such as 1 Samuel 15:11, 35 as “mere anthropomorphisms” or as “simply figurative.” Now you are trying to correct my understanding of Isaiah 10:5-19 by saying, ““Assyria as God’s ‘rod’ is simply a metaphor for the idea that the defeat of Jerusalem by the Assyrians represent divine judgment. The metaphor is not intended to establish systematically the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom.” May I suggest that this fits my description of open theism’s uncanny capacity to mutate when it has to wiggle out from a tight spot?
In my note to Tom, I have already addressed your concerns, but, I shall do so again. You ask, “Does the axe raise itself above him who swings it?” No. And is this not precisely what God tells us by raising the question through the prophet Isaiah? God asks the question: “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!” (Isaiah 10:15). Why does God raise this question? Isaiah’s text makes it clear for everyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear. The Assyrian king boasted,
‘Are not my commanders all kings?’ he says.
‘Has not Calno fared like Carchemish?
Is not Hamath like Arpad,
and Samaria like Damascus?
As my hand seized the kingdoms of the idols,
kingdoms whose images excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria—
shall I not deal with Jerusalem and her images
as I dealt with Samaria and her idols?’” (Isaiah 10:8-11).
In other words, God, through Isaiah, tells us that the Assyrian king boasted as if he were utterly autonomous, as if there were no God who providentially governed over him, as if he had libertarian freedom to act autonomously and independently of God, as if he had ultimate and final authority over his own actions, and as if he could by his own strength conquer any peoples and kings he desired. God likens the Assyrian to an ax, a saw, and a rod in the hand of a man. As the ax and the rod are utterly incapable of raising themselves up to strike an object, so the Assyrian is completely incapable of sustaining himself. God holds him in his hand. God does with the Assyrian as he wishes. This is why God tells us that the Assyrian is “the rod of my anger” and that the Assyrian is “the club of my wrath” in my own hand. God announces, in advance, that the Assyrian, who would choose for self-serving and wicked reasons to assault Israel, nonetheless, in that very choosing would accomplish God’s intended purpose to punish Israel’s rebellion against him. So, God says,
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.
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 (Isaiah 10:6-7).
Does the Assyrian escape personal culpability for his wicked deeds that God purposed that he should carry out against Israel? No, not at all! God holds the Assyrian accountable for doing what God’s own hand raised the Assyrian up to do, as a man wields an ax or a rod. The Assyrian acted but only because God, who wields the ax, acted to send the Assyrian against Israel.
So, JET, who is minimizing the figurative presentation of God? You are. I am not. I am taking this portrayal of God seriously, just as I take all biblical portrayals of God, including those in 1 Samuel 15:11, 35. But I’m not going to discuss those passages, now.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/18/2003 4:10 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
You understood me rightly Icon.
Tom
Then say what you mean. Respond to my careful and close analysis and critique of what you actually said. Correct my understanding with your own careful and close explanation, if indeed I failed to understand what you actually said.
You keep dropping notes in this thread, but at the same time you keep insisting that you don't have time to respond to my note with anything substantive. Could it be that you are dodging the issues, Tom? It surely looks that way.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/18/2003 4:33 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by anewbeginning
Sennacherib's sin was not that he failed to recognize that he and his nation was a compatibalistic pawn of God. It is actually listed in verses 8-11. He (Sennacherib) mistakenly believes that his victories over neighbouring kingdoms were equivalent to victories over their gods(idols). Naturally, God was offended by Sennacherib's arrogance. To demonstare His potency, He reduces Sennacherib's magnificent army to a remnant.
You will find my response to your comments within my responses to JET and Iconoclast. I won't duplicate them here. [Go ahead and laugh about this one, too, Laika.  ]
You also said,
quote:
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.
This quote seems contradictory to your above denial of compatibalism. How does this passage show what you claim?? (i.e. "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 don’t follow your reasoning. Perhaps I missed something. Perhaps I’m dense.  When did I deny compatibilism? I don’t remember ever using the term. I know that I never denied compatibilism. Isaiah 10:5-19 is a portrayal of what theologians call compatibilism. I affirm compatibilism. There, I used the term. 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 8/18/2003 5:11 AM (GMT -6) | | To Polycarp: Your clear, concise, well-thought-out posts are such a breath of fresh air here at CVM. I LOVE how you refuse to be waylaid and taken "off course" with the non-responses of so many "OV'ers". Some of the posts remind me of a quote from James Sire's book, Habits of the Mind, about TRUE INTELLECTUALISM:
True intellectuals, however, have fun with ideas; they move them around, back and forth, turn them on their heads, submit them to ironic reflection, test them with their imagination and don't get so enamored of their own brilliance that they become nothing more than sophisticated, arrogant prigs. (p. 26)
I think some posters need to read this book, and introspect their attitudes and teachability.
Here's another quote that comes to my mind when I read many of the "OV'ers" posts: ... we often lack the courage to check out the challenge, to wrestle with the possibility that our own belief needs serious modification or rejection or replacement. But courage to do so is a virtue that must accompany us in developing our intellectual skills. (p. 120)
I WOULD RECOMMEND ALL THOSE WHO EMBRACE OV BELIEF(S)AND ESPECIALLY THOSE CONSIDERING OV TO CAREFULLY AND PRAYERFULLY READ EVERY POST WRITTEN BY POLYCARP
Sincerely,
SIM
Psalm 139:4 "Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 8/18/2003 5:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by SIM
True intellectuals, however, have fun with ideas; they move them around, back and forth, turn them on their heads, submit them to ironic reflection, test them with their imagination and don't get so enamored of their own brilliance that they become nothing more than sophisticated, arrogant prigs. (p. 26)
I think some posters need to read this book, and introspect their attitudes and teachability.
That's what we're doing. Polycarp says that
quote:
the Lord God as the one who brings about his purposes in and through our every thought and deed
O.K. Let's take that to it's logical extreme. What are God's purposes in our farts and burps? Those are part of our "deeds". What's His purpose? Tell me SIM. We're having "fun with ideas", we're "moving them around, back and forth". Show me God's purpose in burps and farts. Prove Polycarp's implication about ALL deeds and thoughts are fulfilling God's purposes.
I'm thinking about pink elephants right now. What purpose is God accomplishing through that? Why is He causing me to think these thoughts?
Then explain how God's dealings with the nation of Israel shows how He deals with individuals.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/18/2003 5:29 AM (GMT -6) | | SIM,
Thank you for your kind words. To me, your posts are like a drink of cold water in a parched and arid land.
Soon, I may repose as inactive ( ), for it seems that holding open theists accountable for their own words is an invitation for insult and accusation. As the proverb says it, "The truth hurts." 
Thanks.
Polycarp | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 8/18/2003 5:31 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/18/2003 5:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika, it is simply typical of those who oppose to simply repeat themselves as if somehow speaking louder and repeating oneself over and over will make their view a little truer (I believe its called shouting the other person down). It is truly sad when a Christian brother cannot engage others without condemnation and the truimph of his view over others (one does truly wonder how the world views each of us in light of the commandment to love one another).
Regardless, Polycarp, if you didn't understand why I refered to Boyd, then you simply do not have the capability to truly engage my point of view and therefore it is not worth my time to interact with you (except maybe be a thorn in your side ). I would suggest you reread some open theist books, since your point here isn't to understand but to conquer. A hollow victory indeed! | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/18/2003 5:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika: Polyman, may ignore you! We can't have that! God's messager ignoring you. Where will you ever go for the truth! | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/18/2003 5:50 AM (GMT -6) | | SIM: I have carefully considered Polyman's posts but me stomach can only take so much...I'm breaking up, I'm breaking up... | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 8/18/2003 6:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by The Huguenot
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!
I am posting quickly during my lunch break at work. I will respond further later this evening if I am able. As to the changes, while a registered user is logged in to the board they are able to edit their posts. I sometimes feel the need to more fully explain what I meant to say after I have posted.
As to "morphing" the Open View, I do not think I have said anything that is new to the Open View since at least 1999, when I first began studying it in depth. I have primarily studied Dr. Boyd's material, and from what I have studied of it, he makes the same kind of arguments about libertarian free will becoming compatabilistic free will over time. This is not in the slightest new to the Open View, at least as articulated by Dr. Boyd.
Again, I only have a couple of minutes to respond right now, but I will respond more fully when I have more time.
Just a person of faith seeking understanding.
"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 | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/18/2003 6:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by honorman
Laika, it is simply typical of those who oppose to simply repeat themselves as if somehow speaking louder and repeating oneself over and over will make their view a little truer (I believe its called shouting the other person down). It is truly sad when a Christian brother cannot engage others without condemnation and the truimph of his view over others (one does truly wonder how the world views each of us in light of the commandment to love one another).
Regardless, Polycarp, if you didn't understand why I refered to Boyd, then you simply do not have the capability to truly engage my point of view and therefore it is not worth my time to interact with you (except maybe be a thorn in your side). I would suggest you reread some open theist books, since your point here isn't to understand but to conquer. A hollow victory indeed!
I understood why you referred to Boyd. I know open theism like the back of my hand. I can make the case for open theism better than you can. I know, because I've read your posts. I have read and re-read all the open theism literature by Rice, Pinnock, Sanders, Boyd, Hasker, the Basingers, et al. I know the view inside out, upside down, front to back. I already understand the view as advocated by its published and unpublished advocates, inconsistent, incoherent, and mutating as it is.
So, indeed, I didn't come here to try to understand what I already understand very well. I made it quite clear why I came to this thread, and to this thread alone, to post a few notes. I stated my purpose plainly in the eight note in this thread. May I quote myself, Laika?
quote:
If we expect others to fairly and accurately represent us, when we express our theological thoughts and convictions, then we need to be fair and accurate with those with whom we disagree. Thomas Ascol was completely fair to John Sanders with his quotations and comments. John Sanders may not speak for all open theists. Perhaps some or many open theists don't agree with John's presentation of the cross, Gethsemane, and God's plan. But the fact is that John Sanders makes it clear in his book that he believes that God did not plan Jesus' death on the cross until the night before Jesus actually died.
It has become obvious that you open theists are not interested in fairly and accurately representing those with whom you disagree. You're not interested in doing what you repeatedly demand from us. You refuse to engage the issues with seriousness. You mock, deride, decry, insult, harass, patronize, belittle, inveigh, squawk, and otherwise conduct yourself like spoiled brats whenever you encounter anyone who can intelligently expose the flaws of your beliefs. I've watched it happen repeatedly on this bulletin board. I knew it would almost surely happen to me. It has happened again.
So, talk to one another. Pat one another on the back. Congratulate one another for advocating exactly what you want others to say to you. Enjoy your love fest, your group hugs, and your disgusting manners toward anyone who dares to challenge the undemonstrated philosophical presumption that governs your whole theological house of cards.
Now I bid you adieu!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 8/18/2003 6:29 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by SIM
True intellectuals, however, have fun with ideas; they move them around, back and forth, turn them on their heads, submit them to ironic reflection, test them with their imagination and don't get so enamored of their own brilliance that they become nothing more than sophisticated, arrogant prigs. (p. 26)
I think some posters need to read this book, and introspect their attitudes and teachability.
That's what we're doing. Polycarp says that
quote:
the Lord God as the one who brings about his purposes in and through our every thought and deed
O.K. Let's take that to it's logical extreme. What are God's purposes in our farts and burps?
SIM: Assuming you're asking a genuine question, I will give my opinion, especially because I believe that this has to do with a subject that causes a WHOLE LOT OF CHRISTIANS MAJOR PROBLEMS . The major temptation for us as Believers is the temptation to COMPARTMENTALIZE things in our life (i.e., a politician from California, in explaining ex-Pres. Clinton's political abilities in the light of the Lewinsky scandal, stated that "Pres. Clinton has the capacity to compartmentalize things in his life").
I don't think Christians should compartmentalize anything in our Christian life. The physical can and should be submitted to God, as well as the mental, emotionally, and spiritual. We should breathe, speak, eat, and do ALL things, even the most menial tasks, in light of God's purposes for us, and to His glory. Christians believe that our physical bodies should be no less sacred than any other parts. Jesus Christ incarnated physically. This negates the heretical belief that the body is evil.
Our physical bodies are no less valuable in their purpose than any other part of us. Our bodies are the "temple of God". We should treat them as "Holy" - "set apart" - as any other part of us. In other words, we can't compartmentalize one part of our being because it is connnected, and therefore influences, all the other parts.
Therefore, there is no "logical extreme" in your thinking.
"Thinking is a tiring process; it is much easier to accept beliefs passively than to think them out, rigorously questioning their grounds by asking what are the consequences that follow from them."
L. Susan Stebbing Thinking to Some Purpose
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 8/18/2003 6:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by SIM
SIM: Assuming you're asking a genuine question, I will give my opinion, especially because I believe that this has to do with a subject that causes a WHOLE LOT OF CHRISTIANS MAJOR PROBLEMS . The major temptation for us as Believers is the temptation to COMPARTMENTALIZEthings in our life (i.e., a politician from California, in explaining ex-Pres. Clinton's political abilities in the light of the Lewinsky scandal, stated that "Pres. Clinton has the capacity to compartmentalize things in his life").
I don't think Christians should compartmentalize anything in our Christian life. The physical can and should be submitted to God, as well as the mental, emotionally, and spiritual. We should breathe, speak, eat, and do ALL things, even the most menial tasks, in light of God's purposes for us, and to His glory. Christians believe that our physical bodies should be no less sacred than any other parts. Jesus Christ incarnated physically. This negates the heretical belief that the body is evil.
Our physical bodies are no less valuable in their purpose than any other part of us. Our bodies are the "temple of God". We should treat them as "Holy" - "set apart" - as any other part of us. In other words, we can't compartmentalize one part of our being because it is connnected, and therefore influences, all the other parts.
Therefore, there is no "logical extreme" in your thinking.
Yeah, I just don't think God permeates everything, that would be pantheism. If I stub my toe, I don't wonder what God's purpose in it was, I just realize occaisionally I will stub my toe.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/18/2003 7:11 AM (GMT -6) | | (Group hug!!!) I feel warm all over now. I always wonder why when a classical theist comes on, starts a dialogue, doesn't like the answer, gets all rude and mean, calls us to repent, doesn't address the answers given and THEN its all about us? HMMM...
Perhaps the fact that you Polycarp seem to know open theism like the back of your hand gives us a clue. Perhaps you need a cup of humility to go with your cup of self-righteousness.
I know Calvinism, but I would never presume to know it better than an actual Calvinist. But then I am merely human
Sometimes gains are made through substraction...yes, he does sound a lot like Paul. And Sim could be a dead ringer for the Fleety One. But I tend to want to give them the benefit of the doubt, no matter how they act.
Polycarp: I'm praying for you. I pray that God will replace a little of that passion for the truth with some passion to love. Without love, as Paul says, we are nothing... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/18/2003 7:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Polycarp-
I gotta tell ya as kindly as I can that you make it very difficult for those you disagree with to engage in discussion. So I obviously don’t agree with SIM. Your attitude is insulting, haughty, and rude. There will always be people who enjoy discussion at this level, I suppose, but it’s part of the reason why I’m not inclined to get into it with ya.
But to others who are interested, and less blood-thirsty, I’ll offer a few comments…
What Polycarp calls mutation is, it seems to me, nothing more than the sort of diversity present within views such as Calvinism itself enjoys. Not all Calvinists or Reformed folk today agree with everything Calvin taught or, I imagine, agree with all the arguments he used to support positions they might agree with. Mutation? Call it what you like. It’s a healthy thing to allow interaction with others to refine and sharpen your views and your articulation of your views. This is a strength and not a weakness.
However, it seems to me that Polycarp means something else by mutation. It appears to me that he means to impute to open theists an unwillingness to face objections or address them honestly. Open theists’ publications and responses are in reality nothing more than word games, evasion tactics, or mutations undertaken to escape the argument. Believe this about open theists if it helps reassure you of the truth of your own positions, but it’s pretty obvious to me that on the whole this is not the case. I approached my study of open theism slowly and prayerfully. I wanted, and still want, to believe what is true and right. And I’m prepared to walk away from open theism today if I find a view that accounts for the evidence across the board (biblical, logical, traditional, and existential) better than the open view. And I know other open theists who feel the same way.
Having gotten to know Doc, and to varying degrees through email discussions Sanders, Hasker, and David Basinger, I don’t get the feeling that these are the sort of people who don’t want to believe the truth, or who are so invested in their positions that they don’t consider objections to their views with honest objectivity and a willingness to admit that they are wrong when convinced. Are there open theists about whom this is not true? No doubt there are. No doubt Polycarp has met plenty of them. But I’ll say the same thing about those who strongly oppose the open view, whether theological determinists or traditional Arminians. I’ll grant that the majority of them want to believe what is right and true and engage those who disagree with them as honestly as they can. But are there theological determinists about whom this is not true, who are so invested in their views and in their need to be “right” that objectivity (i.e., openness to the possibility of being wrong) is out of their reach? Sure there are. And the short exposure I’ve had to Polycarp inclines me to believe he is such a person, though I’d love to be proven wrong on this score.
Now, about “coercion.” It’s not a word I use to describe theological determinists. By coercion I understand “forcefully persuading someone to do something they are unwilling to do.” Coercion assumes, then, that the person in question has declared they are unwilling to engage in whatever act is being forced upon them. Theological determinists obviously do not assert that God so forces people against their will to do anything and I don’t know of any open theist or Arminian who claims that this IS the view of determinists. Theological determinists do not assert that God forces people against their will. So what’s the deal? Well, what determinists do in positing an “unconditional” decree is to make the “willing” of the person an object of the decree. So obviously it never arises that God has to forcefully persuade a person against his will to do what God decreed they do. God decrees that they “will” to do what they do. That there is no objection on the part of the person does not itself secure moral responsibility. So yes, God coerces no one, even in an exhaustively and unconditionally determined world. The willing is embraced by the decree, otherwise there’s no guaranteeing that a person “will” do what is decreed.
Now, does Isa. 10 prove what Polycarp claims it proves?
First, I tend to agree with him about what the text itself asserts. What else can I do when a person’s argument amounts to little more than quoting the text? God does use Assyria as an instrument of judgment against Israel and Assyria is responsible for their actions. I take this as an example of God working compatibilistically and not coercively. So why am I not a determinist? Because I claim a) that Assyria was not “unconditionally determined” by God to become the sort of evil empire it became, and b) that God does not relate exclusively to humans compatibilistically. Assyria, having freely become resolved in its intentions to embark on a campaign to invade and spoil its neighbors (v. 7), qualified itself to be used by God in this manner. Once having committed itself wrecklessly to evil, the nation was then directed by God in Israel’s direction and let lose. Open theism has nothing to fear in this text or others like it and nothing to object to in God acting compatibilistically with freely resolved agents. What open theists (and all Arminians, hello SIM) object to is God “unconditionally” determining that Assyria will become so resolved. Does Polycarp wish to deny the unconditionality of God’s decree? Does he wish to deny the exhaustive nature of the decree? I thought not. Well, the fact that nobody “objects” to doing what they’re unconditionally predetermined to want to do comes as no surprise.
Secondly, there’s no reason to believe that Isa. 10 proves what Polycarp claims it proves, namely, that God unconditionally determines all events in precisely the same manner in which God here determined Israel’s judgment through Assyria. Polycarp can stand and point at the text all he wants to and challenge us all he likes to “deal with the text,” but until he deals with the text himself he hasn’t given us anything to discuss. The text describes God’s use of an evil nation as an instrument of judgment against God’s people. There’s nothing in the text to suggest that God relates exclusively in such a compatibilistic manner and every reason (in light of the whole of Scripture) to believe God does not so relate to us exclusively.
Polycarp is passionately invested in his determinism, and I can appreciate passion. But he brings his deterministic presuppositions to the text and offers nothing from the text itself to suggest God relates exclusively to us compatibilistically. Open theists have always granted that given the right conditions God can so work, but the conditions that determine when God is able to so work are determined by us, not God. We didn’t mutate into such a view.
Lastly, on the morality of naming our children, choosing to have lunch at 1 PM instead of at noon, and burping (thank you Laika!), I would like first to agree with Polycarp that there is very real sense in which believers sanctify all of life’s decisions by consciously committing all they are and all they do “as unto the Lord.” All of life becomes a sacrament when we so intend to live our lives, and it’s a wonderful thing to get to this. And I think too there is a real sense in which (though to varying decrees depending on how resolved against God an unbeliever is, or whether a person is moving toward God or away from God) the mundane amoral choices of an unbeliever are polluted so to speak by her unbelief.
However, this doesn’t seem to me to translate into the “specific” morality of naming a child Fred instead of Al, or of belching in one long single go of it as opposed to breaking it up into several smaller burps. Polycarp is arguing for a sort of domino effect involving the specific morality regarding such choices on the basis that believers are to do all they do as unto the Lord. I appreciate the concern to view all of life as lived for, or not for, the Lord, but this does not translate into such specificity. It can as easily be understood by attributing the morality to the specific choice to so live; that is, the failure to choose to do what I do “for the Lord” is itself it’s own choice and is something God will certainly ask us believers to account for, but this remains a choice to intend that is separate from the choice to belch in one single go or separately, talking as you go while sitting on the toilet. It’s good to be concerned to maintain the wholeness of life lived oriented Godward or selfward, but this concern can be met without insisting that failing to consciously belch “as unto the Lord” is itself a “sin.”
However, even IF there exist no “amoral” choices as Polycarp describes them, my point about the naming of Cyrus stands. Icon read me rightly. My point was not that there are “amoral” choices out there and that these alone are fodder for God’s unilateral working. That is part of what’s going on. That is, I do think there are genuinely amoral choices we make and that God can work unilaterally in this area of life without holding us morally responsible. I don’t pretend to know the factors that determine when God so intervenes. My point was rather that regardless of the morality of naming one’s child, if God determines to bring it about unconditionally that Cyrus’s parents name him Cyrus, then they are not morally responsible for the act. Yes, yes, compatibilitists claim that such unconditional determinations on God’s part are compatible with our being held morally responsible the act. Open thesits, like all Arminians who hold to self-determining free will, disagree, and should not alone be thought of as heretical on this account. But then again, perhaps Polycarp means to accuse traditional Arminians along with open theists for being Assyrian-like and in need of repentance for holding to a view of freedom that allows God to relate to us BOTH compatibilistically on some occasions and non-compatibilistically on others.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/18/2003 10:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
Thanks for taking some time to respond. Your assessment of me is of little significance, for it is not accurate or right. Like the other other nasties in this thread, you presume that I am your enemy because I have spoken truth. Believe what you want about me. I'm not going to defend myself against your harsh accusations, criticisms, and judgmental tartness.
I will only respond to a few things in your note. Much of the note would require too much restatement and reiteration of numerous things I've already said in other responses. So, I will not respond tit-for-tat to the bulk of your note.
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Now, about “coercion.” It’s not a word I use to describe theological determinists. By coercion I understand “forcefully persuading someone to do something they are unwilling to do.” Coercion assumes, then, that the person in question has declared they are unwilling to engage in whatever act is being forced upon them. Theological determinists obviously do not assert that God so forces people against their will to do anything and I don’t know of any open theist or Arminian who claims that this IS the view of determinists. Theological determinists do not assert that God forces people against their will. So what’s the deal?
Have you read The God Who Risks by John Sanders? Did you carefully read my note to you in which I said the following?
quote:
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).
Simply because you don’t make the claim hardly means that other open theists join you. John Sanders, just to mention one open theist, does make the claim. I’ve listened to open theists say it. I’ve read their books in which they make the claim. So, Tom, do you want to rethink your statement?
quote:
Open theists have always granted that given the right conditions God can so work, but the conditions that determine when God is able to so work are determined by us, not God. We didn’t mutate into such a view.
I’ve read this bulletin board long enough to know that you, Tom, only recently embraced open theism, because it was not long ago that you had not encountered it at a level that compelled you to engage it with vigor. For us who have been tracing open theism from its inception in evangelical circles, open theism has plainly mutated, just as I pointed out in my note to you. Any reasonable reading of Greg Boyd’s developing ideas can recognize that his own ideas have mutated, again, just as I pointed out in my quotes from Satan and the Problem of Evil.
quote:
My point was rather that regardless of the morality of naming one’s child, if God determines to bring it about unconditionally that Cyrus’s parents name him Cyrus, then they are not morally responsible for the act.
Now this brings me to the question I asked of you when you said, “Now, I personally don't see anything in Acts 4 that requires an "eternal, unconditional, and effeciacious decree" of the events surrounding the crucifixion.”
Given your view that that God occasionally acts unilaterally in such a manner that his action relieves humans from being "morally responsible for the act," it seems to me that your view would exonerate those who murdered Jesus Christ. Given Greg Boyd's view of coercion, God cannot hold Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Roman soldiers, or the Jewish leaders accountable for their role in the act of crucifying the Son of God.
If, in the underlined portion of the quote, you thought you were describing compatibilism, you missed. Why? You placed the adverb “unconditionally” in the wrong place. You placed it as a modifier of the verbal phrase “to bring it about.” This is not compatibilism. This is coercion. To describe compatibilism correctly, you would have to place the adverb "unconditionally" with the verb "determines." Syntax matters. If God unconditionally brings about something, we might call that a "miracle." For a miracle has no antecedent cause within the ordinary events of history.
Here is compatibilism. All the events God ordained that will to come to pass are conditional in that God ordained that they should come to pass conditioned upon previous situations as causes. God’s planning of the events, however, is not conditional in that nothing outside God’s own will influenced his foreordaining of all things. In other words, God’s act of foreordaining is not conditioned by the things he foreordained. (How could it be? They didn't exist to influence his decision.) The things God foreordained, however, are conditioned upon foreordained events, actions, or situations as causes that bring them to pass. This is compatibilism.
Respond if you would like. I will lurk about, but I offer no assurances that I will return to post. Any further posts, I fear, will prove redundant, superfluous, and simply provide more fodder for the oxen that gore anyone who loves them enough to raise thoughtful and reasonable arguments to demonstrate that they are drinking from poisoned wells.
Adios! 
P.S. Mockers and scoffers, I beg you to remember that you will have to give an accounting to God of your mockery and scoffing. You blaspheme things you do not even understand (Jude 10). It is Christ's love that constrains me to say this, as I go.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/18/2003 5:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi all-
Got a note from John Sanders. It seems he was able to read part of this thread. He’s broken his right hand so typing is a bit difficult, but he asked me to post these comments:
--------------------------
As an author I do not always communicate exactly what I want to say and sometimes I even say things I should not have said. Hence, I feel free to modify, put in different words because different people interpret the same words differently, or even reject things I've said. Calvin continually revised his great Institutes throughout his life. As a student I was deeply troubled by something Walter Kaiser said in his Towards an OT Theology. I was flummoxed and thought what he said on this particular page messed up his entire work. When I asked him about it he discovered that one particular term he used threw me off track so told me to scratch out that word and use a different one. He did this so effortlessly and graciously that it has been a good example for me to try to follow.
TGB states my position quite well in his responses. I might put some things a bit differently but he does a good job. Let me say right off the bat that I've always thought God knew all possibilities and probabilities and if I did not use that language in GWR then that was lapse on my part. I did not begin to think that way after Boyd published and my latter work is not a going from a "wide open future" to a partly definite and party indefinite future. I did pick up the terms definite and indefinite from Boyd and I think they well express what I was feebly trying to say.
Second, Boettner in his The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination castigates infralapsarians for introducing a contingency plan into God. He says such thinking is no better than Arminianism!
Third, regarding Gethsemane. TGB is correct that words are put into my mouth by the quote from that book and by one of the person's posts. Perhaps it is my use of the word "moment" that they interpret to mean God did not have a clue until that night that the crucifixion would occur. Such is not my belief. One of the posts declares: "Thomas Ascol also correctly represented John Sanders' statements, and accurately understands what Sanders says and means,” and "Thomas Ascol was completely fair to John Sanders with his quotations and comments....But the fact is that John Sanders makes it clear in his book that he believes that God did not plan Jesus' death on the cross until the night before Jesus actually died." In my opinion, Ascol did not interpret me charitably. He is correct when he quotes me but incorrect when he inserts his own gloss in between the quotes. Contrary to fact, it is not a "fact" that I believe what is attributed to me here.
What I'm probing in that section of my book (and perhaps doing a lousy job of it) is trying to understand what is happening between Jesus and the Father in the garden. It has long been a controversial issue since it looks like Jesus does not want to follow the plan of the Father even though Jesus himself has been telling others that he will follow the Father's plan. The history of interpretation of this passage is quite diverse. It seems to me that, in the garden, Jesus is wrestling with the Father on this issue whereas he was not previously. They both know what has been planned but I think Jesus is asking whether, even at this late date, is this the only way? When he is sure that the Father is saying this is the only way, then Jesus submits and courageously endures the suffering. No open theist is necessarily committed to my understanding of the garden scene (or to my understanding of Romans 9-11 for that matter).
This same person posting the above also says that I "selectively ignored lots of evidence that contradicts his argument that the cross was not planned prior to creation." I did address such texts (perhaps not all the ones this person would like me to address). Though I certainly did not persuade this person of my understanding I did not ignore lots of evidence. He goes on to say of me: "He ignores the fact that Jesus predicted his crucifixion at least three times (Mark 8, 9 , 10)." Perhaps he should read pages 134-5 of my GWR where I discussed this very issue citing Mark 10. Again, I'm not claiming that I addressed this issue to everyone's satisfaction.
Though I believe that God, prior to creation, was prepared for the contingency of human sin with a plan of redemption, I do not believe that the specifics of the cross were then part of the plan. When was the cross part of the plan? I don't know. Certainly it was long before Gethsemane. One of the main problems with this entire discussion is that I am not utilizing prophecy the way that many evangelicals are. I was taught along the lines of Josh McDowell that you use OT predictions of the events in the life of Jesus to prove the Bible is from God. I no longer make use of such apologetics. This has to do with a change in epistemology that I will not go into here. On page 130 of GWR I discussed this apologetic use of prophecy. My own view on how the NT writers are utilizing the OT to argue that Jesus was really the fulfillment of God's plan is briefly stated on 133-4. I know that many evangelicals will object to this understanding of prophecy for it will mean they cannot "prove" the Bible is from God. Taking such proofs away is painful but I think this is the direction of the majority of NT scholarship regarding the NT use of the OT (see, for example, the work of evangelical scholar N. T. Wright and also Telford Work, Living and Active: Scripture in the Economy of Salvation, 196-208).
I hope what I've said, though brief, is helpful.
Blessings,
Dr. John Sanders
-------------------------------
Polycarp: …you presume that I am your enemy because I have spoken truth.
Tom: I neither presume you are an enemy nor that you speak the truth. But I will add one thing to my opinion of you…you can be funny.
Polycarp: Given your view that that God occasionally acts unilaterally in such a manner that his action relieves humans from being "morally responsible for the act," it seems to me that your view would exonerate those who murdered Jesus Christ.
Tom: Actually no, for I do not assert that the event was unconditionally determined by God.
Polycarp: If, in the underlined portion of the quote, you thought you were describing compatibilism, you missed. Why? You placed the adverb “unconditionally” in the wrong place. You placed it as a modifier of the verbal phrase “to bring it about.” This is not compatibilism. This is coercion. To describe compatibilism correctly, you would have to place the adverb "unconditionally" with the verb "determines.”
Tom: Well, by all means then, put the modifier in the right place: “God unconditionally determines….” There.
Polycarp: Here is compatibilism. All the events God ordained that will to come to pass are conditional in that God ordained that they should come to pass conditioned upon previous situations as causes. God’s planning of the events, however, is not conditional in that nothing outside God’s own will influenced his foreordaining of all things. In other words, God’s act of foreordaining is not conditioned by the things he foreordained. (How could it be? They didn't exist to influence his decision.) The things God foreordained, however, are conditioned upon foreordained events, actions, or situations as causes that bring them to pass. This is compatibilism.
Tom: Just the understanding of compatibilism I have always had. Now, tell me, can a person honestly disagree with this without being a mocker and a scoffer? Is it possible that a person with a longing for truth and an objectivity equal to yours can look at the evidence and conclude that compatibilism is false? Is that even possible Polycarp?
Polycarp: Respond if you would like. I will lurk about, but I offer no assurances that I will return to post. Any further posts, I fear, will prove redundant, superfluous, and simply provide more fodder for the oxen that gore anyone who loves them enough to raise thoughtful and reasonable arguments to demonstrate that they are drinking from poisoned wells.
Tom: What a martyr. Look, you’re just blowing hot air here. Nobody is goring you for raising thoughtful arguments. It’s your attitude that is adversarial, uptight, and grouchy. Fix that and people will talk all day with you about Isa. 10 or any other text you wanna talk about.
By the way...roar and welcome back!
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 8:07 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 |
|
|