 |
 | 
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/19/2003 12:32 PM (GMT -6) |   | Thanks for your work, Tom, for relating what Mr. Sanders had to say. And thanks for taking the time from your schedule to answer Poly. Needs a total chill pill! Must be wonderful at Halloween parties.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 8/19/2003 6:37 PM (GMT -6) | | My belated response to The Huguenot: (By the way, my own family history includes some Huguenots who came to the Carolinas after being forced out of Catholic France - cool. Do you have Huguenot ancestry?)
quote:
Originally posted by The Huguenot
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."
Well, actually Dr. Boyd (the OVT author whom I have studied the most) clearly states in his God of the Possible and in Satan & the Problem of Evil that human free will is quite definitely limited, and that character solidification occurs as one persists in habitual sin or righteousness. It is not a change in the definition of free will, but a full explanation of all that this entails. In other words, we don't believe in absolute free will in all cases, not in the least. For example, experience tells us that the more one chooses to sin the easier and easier it gets for that one to persist in sinning and even expand in his/her capacity to greater sins.
For example:
Is 30:1 "Woe to the rebellious children," declares the LORD, "Who execute a plan, but not Mine, And make an alliance, but not of My Spirit, In order to add sin to sin;
(Talk about incompatibilism!)
John 8:31 ¶ So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, {then} you are truly disciples of Mine;
32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
33 They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?"
34 ¶ Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.
35 "The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.
36 "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.
Rom 6:11 Even so consider yourselves (thought) to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 ¶ Therefore do not let sin reign (action) in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
13 and do not go on presenting (action) the members of your body to sin {as} instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members {as} instruments of righteousness to God.
14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
15 ¶ What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone {as} slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. (habituation of righteousness).
19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in {further} lawlessness, (habituation of sinful actions) so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification. (habituation of righteousness).20 ¶ For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
21 Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death.
22 But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
I have added words in the passage above signified by paretheses and colored blue in order to point out thoughts and actions that proceed from those thoughts, as well as the resulting habituation/character formation that develops from persistence in either direction. The above passages are but a few of the more significant examples I am aware of in Scripture that describe what Boyd calls "character solidification."
quote:
But, I don't know, Mr. Earp. I mean, you really did an honest job of dealing with it.
Thank you for your kind words. I realize Polycarp will probably disagree with your assessment of the "job" I did, but I sincerely and honestly have tried to respond to the points he raised. It is probably owing to my lack of seminary education that I am unable to answer to Polycarp's satisfaction. God is my witness that I truly seek to please the Lord in all I do, especially when discussing God's Holy Word.
quote:
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?
In those cases in which Scripture seems to imply compatabilism (as Isaiah 10 seems to), the same holds true. Any of them (compatibilistic texts) can be understood by the above approach without violating the context at all (much to the contrary, it seems to me that this is simply and only interpreting different passages of Scripture according to their genre, setting, etc. Nothing revolutionary in that, is there?)
Funny thing that occurs to me is that Polycarp does not even attempt to deal with the multitude of commonly cited texts that are referenced by OVTheists, all of which appear to flatly contradict compatibilism.
quote:
Quite honestly, I just think its a good idea for OVTheists to leave hermeneutics out, since the OV has run roughshod over hermeneutics.
To the contrary, it seems to me that the Open View consistently tries to let each passage speak in context. Both apparently compatabilistic as well as apparently libertarian texts are dealt with according to their respective categories of partly fixed, partly open.
quote:
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.
I do appreciate what you have to say, and appreciate your willingness to dialogue.
"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 | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 8/19/2003 6:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Originally posted by The Huguenot
quote:
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.
I see no reason to think that God might relate to Abraham other than how He will relate to you. Abraham is repeatedly held up in the New Testament as the model of the believer who is justified by faith. We find in Scripture how God in fact relates to people. I do think we should realize there is a great difference between how He deals with nations as opposed to individuals, though.
quote:
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.
If I understand Polycarp's basic argument, it is that based on Isaiah 10, the Open View is false, for in Is. 10 God obviously uses Assyria to mete out temporal judgment upon Israel and then turns around and hold Assyria responsible for her actions and duly punishes them. (Am I missing something?) I find his argument unconvincing because the Open View does not all deny that God sometimes unilaterally or compatibilistically operates in human history.
quote:
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.
The way out of the rut, according to both Arminianism and Open Theism, is prevenient grace; that is, God's gracious drawing of the sinner to Christ, persuading him of the truth of the gospel, and enabling him to respond in true repentance and faith. The rut is overcome by the power of God's Spirit (prevenient grace).
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.
I don't think that was what I was saying, but it's late for me right now, too, and I don't type or think well when I'm sleepy. I think my point was that Assyria was being judged for her own sins, the chief of which was PRIDE.
Is. 10:12 ¶ So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, {He will say,} "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness."
13 For he has said, "By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did {this,} For I have understanding; And I removed the boundaries of the peoples And plundered their treasures, And like a mighty man I brought down {their} inhabitants,
14 And my hand reached to the riches of the peoples like a nest, And as one gathers abandoned eggs, I gathered all the earth; And there was not one that flapped its wing or opened {its} beak or chirped."
15 ¶ Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it? Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it? {That would be} like a club wielding those who lift it, {Or} like a rod lifting {him who} is not wood.
16 Therefore the Lord, the GOD of hosts, will send a wasting disease among his stout warriors; And under his glory a fire will be kindled like a burning flame.
It seems to me that in this passage the Lord is being quite clear as to why he will punish Assyria--because of pride and arrogance, and thinking they were "IT" so to speak in that day and time.
quote:
From JE's earlier post: 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.
From The Huguenot: Do you mean, then, that you think it was a non-moral choice?
No. It is simply the case that God was punishing Assyria for her own sins, and he was punishing Israel for her own sins. (I think we must agree that each was responsible before God).
quote:
I'm not sure about how you see a link between Israel and Canaan, and Assyria and Israel.
I was not trying to draw a link, but to make a comparison, a parallel. Sorry if my words were confusing. What I meant was, just as God punished Israel for Aachan's sin at Ai as well the Canaanites during the same time period, both for their own sins, and uses each to punish the other, in the same way God would punish BOTH Assyria AND Israel, each for her own sins.
"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 | | |
|
The Huguenot
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 8/19/2003 8:28 PM (GMT -6) | | John Earp: Thank you for your reply. It is evident that you put effort and time into it, both of which I am probably not deserving, so thank you. I will reply as soon as God (in my view, providentially and with complete predetermining,  ) allows. I will obviously hope to pay you the same courtesy you paid me.
No, I am not of French descent, though I feel I have connections to the Huguenots in other ways. Kudos, to you, however. You have a rich heritage. I can see my reply to hinging on this, so maybe I'll throw this out for you to mull over before I post, and if you want, you can beat me to it and share your own thoughts. I think my post will probably ask you your thoughts on texts that you quoted that have to do with words that connotate ideas other than freedom. For instance: slave, slavery, master, owned, enslaved, etc. My beef is that even when Christ sets you free, it is so that you can be a slave to righteousness (Romans 6) or enslaved to God (ibid). The only time you are free with regards to righteousness is when you are a slave to sin, and you are only freed from sin when you are the slave of Christ. So, thats a preview.
Iconoclast: You challenged Polycarp with the Matthew 6 verse taken from the Lord's prayer. Polycarp, forgive me if you wanted to handle this, and feel free to still do so, but in the mean time, Icon, I hope to give you a viable, biblical, and hopefully persuasive answer. Though I do not expect to convert you, I do hope to give you an answer that makes you think, "Hmm. Well, he sure didn't convince me, but I could see how a person could come to that understanding. That seems one way of understanding, etc..."
quote:
If EVERYTHING that happens is God’s will – part of God’s purpose – then why does Jesus tell us to pray “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”? Doesn’t this imply that God’s will is NOT being done here on earth at the moment?
I think the answer to your question is no. And I would humbly suggest that the reason this logic doesn't hold is because of your last question. What Jesus' prayer does imply is that GOD'S WILL IS NOT BEING DONE ON EARTH (this much you did say, but) AS IT IS IN HEAVEN. So, the question we must ask ourselves, is "How is God's will being carried out, i.e. performed, 'being done,' in heaven?" I think the answer to that question is, "God's will is being done IN PERFECT OBEDIENCE AND TOTAL DELIGHT in heaven."
OVTheists can agree with me here that in heaven, we have complete character solidification in that we obey God 100% of the time, and we want to do so. If this is accepted as the premise, then the answer to the question that you, Icon, raise ("Why does Jesus tell us to pray...?") is that here on earth, men ARE NOT carrying out God's will in obedience or delighting in it. But do you see the catch here? We still are carrying out His will. Except, here on earth we carry out God's sovereign plan as defiant rebels, who are unhappy with the very decisions we make. So in my understanding, this text actually argues obtusely FOR God's exhaustive sovereignty over men's will. However, in heaven both the angels and "character solidified" humans rejoice in obediently carrying out God's will. I think that this is an interesting difference in historic Christianity and OVTheism. In historic Christianity, humans receive true free will in heaven, yet on earth are bound by the passions and desires infringing on our wills (both for sin or righteousness [Romans 6:13-7:1]). However in the OV, we are completely free in the libertarian sense on earth, yet in heaven we are characteristically solidified.
Well, Icon, what do you think? A waste of time? I hope you could get something out of it. Eagerly awaiting your thoughts.
The Huguenot
SDG | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 8/20/2003 5:35 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by The Huguenot
No, I am not of French descent, though I feel I have connections to the Huguenots in other ways. Kudos, to you, however. You have a rich heritage.
I greatly respect the degree of persecution the Huguenots were willing to suffer for their faith. We also have a long history in our family of Methodist circuit-rider preachers in the 1800s, and Pentecostal preachers in the 1900s, so that is probably why I am not Reformed like the Huguenots were and a free-willer like the Methodists and Pentecostals are. Anyway...
quote:
I can see my reply to hinging on this, so maybe I'll throw this out for you to mull over before I post, and if you want, you can beat me to it and share your own thoughts. I think my post will probably ask you your thoughts on texts that you quoted that have to do with words that connotate ideas other than freedom. For instance: slave, slavery, master, owned, enslaved, etc. My beef is that even when Christ sets you free, it is so that you can be a slave to righteousness (Romans 6) or enslaved to God (ibid). The only time you are free with regards to righteousness is when you are a slave to sin, and you are only freed from sin when you are the slave of Christ. So, thats a preview.
I certainly agree with Jesus that "no man can serve two masters." In Romans 6, it specifically states:
Rom 6:16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone {as} slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, OR of obedience resulting in righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
Rom 6:18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
And so it would seem to me that yes, we are indeed either slaves of sin or slaves of righteousness. The "present yourselves" and the "consider yourselves," and the "do not let sin reign" refer to our power of contrary choice (free will), and God's Spirit works with us and in us (synergistically) to enable us to live holy and obedient lives.
Of course, there is a process of sanctification by which we ideally come to fully realize and actualize this freedom from the bondage of sin that is ours in Christ. In other words, the Christian life is not a zap, it's a walk.
"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 | | |
|
Kenya
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 8/21/2003 9:35 AM (GMT -6) | | | I don't know what to say, but I am really sorry Polycarp for the way you've been treated. I do not want to say very much because I don't want to be mocked like you have been, and the others too. This is one of the worse websites I have seen. People are mean. I guess people are mean anyways. It's just a mean world period. It's no different here than it is out there. I am so thankful though for you and the Hugonot and the others because you have really helped me to understand some things better. I was very confused before. And now that I have also seen how you have been treated by people who say they are Christians. I never thought you were rude Polycarp. I am only one person but I know without a doubt that you are a very wise and godly man. It is very obvious and you might not have gotten far with people here, but you helped me tremendously. So did the Hugonot. You are both very intelligent. Instead of answering most of what you said, you were ridiculed and mocked. It was very ugly to watch people who are supposed to be Christians do this to you. I am sad to see it but thankful for what I learned from you. Take care Polycarp and the others who took a risk. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 8/21/2003 11:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Kenya,
You have a far greater need than to understand Open Theism; you need to learn how to set your heart aside and approach the subjects on this board with some thinking ... thinking that really gives some thought to the way Polycarp acted from the start. Oh, granted, there's others on the board who may have an attitude here and there, but I don't think you have been here long enough to know how they are when they aren't treated as Polycarp has treated them. Why do you think one participant on this thread said, "Yeah, man. Your style is UNmistakable, Poly. It has been awhile ...."? It wasn't because of Polycarp's decent attitude, that's for sure.
I've been hear for almost two years. Rarely are there nasties going on that aren't more than some heated tempers. They are almost always resolved quickly, and it is understood why the heat is such around here; because Open Theism is a hot topic itself. It gets under a lot of people's skin. But this isn't the only topic that has stirred the heat. Either way, it is rare--I can count on one hand with fingers to spare--when this board has gotten ugly at times.
No, the issue isn't how Polycarp got all beat up--you need to go back from the start and re-read this entire thread. It's about people coming onto this board, with no respect for the heartache and turmoil others here have had to go through in order to work through their issues, and then have to listen to and endure the treatment of people like Polycarp. (Polycarp, you really need to repent, big time. And if you have, you are not only warmly forgiven, but your are truly welcome.)
Jesus wasn't Mr. Nice Guy all the time, Kenya. He got on people's case when it was called for. If you're confused over issues raised on this board, running to the heart-recovery rescue of Polycarp's attitude and ad-hominem attacks is hardly the way to face off with the issues. Ask questions, read, ask more questions, work your you-know-what off until you get the answers (heart set aside as much as possible, and mind fully engaged) until you are no longer confused. You may not agree with the Open View, but the last--I repeat, the last--thing you want to do is run for cover, particularly to Polycarp. (I say again, if Polycarp is willing to come back and treat others with respect as he wrestles with the issues, we'll back him all the way. And if anyone else on this board, particularly those who've been here for a while don't forgive him, they'll hear about it from the rest of us.)
A lot of people have paid a price of some sorts to find resolution to a lot of the issues we talk about here. Be a participant, too, Kenya, until you also find resolution.
For sticking it out until the battle's won,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Kenya
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 8/21/2003 3:30 PM (GMT -6) | | | Starkman, I don't want to be a participant on this website. I only posted to thank Polycarp because he has helped me a great deal. I do not want to be a part of the conversations either but will say this one thing to you. If Polycarp is someone else, it does not matter to me. He still helped me a very good deal. I read the polls and it looks like there are alot of people who have dual personalities on this website. Maybe you too? Who knows for sure. How come you justify the open view people's rudeness but condemn Polycarp for his? That is what you are doing. I think it's wrong and ugly and don't wish to be here. I should never have said anything to begin with because I knew that I would get negative responses after I had read them all. I will not take your advice. I do not want to learn about open view on this website. I can tell that it is very one-sided and I will go elsewhere. I will talk to my pastor about it. I did not come to Polycarp's rescue but I thanked him and told him that I think it's wrong how he was treated. I still think it was wrong because people were mocking him and being sarcastic and other things. I will not be back here to read any more of your comments. Please nobody reply to me because I know it will be rude. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/21/2003 6:23 PM (GMT -6) | | I've been so busy at work, so no time to participate - but I love this thread. I think there IS some good dialogue going. But sometimes I wonder where are some of you guys coming from? I have read Polycarp's posts, i have no clue who he or she is, and I don't at all see him having an "attitude." I DO see him being ganged up on, like I have and some others, but that's ok. I think we're all big enough that we can get past that.
I have a question - who created the "will"? The OVers who are saying that eventually, a person cements his own character, so that his actions become determined by his repeated exercise of his free will - please answer that. B/c it is well known that each person "solidifies" his own character in different manners. And this solidification is the result of many factors, genetics, environment, etc. And those things are at least partially determined by God, are they not? The fact that you are born in a certain time, to a certain family, in a certain country, etc., are all things we have no control over. So unless NO BEING WHATSOEVER has any control over those things, God must. If he doesn't, I wonder why we even bother. If there are things that happen outside his control, he's hardly worthy of worshiping.
I think that's another problem w/ the open view- a lot of OV'ers try to turn the tables by saying, "Well why do you need a God who is in control? Why do you need a God who always has to know what's going on?" Well, for one thing, what I or anyone else needs is irrelevant to the truth. For another, all of Christian theology and philosophy has consistently taught that God is higher than any other being, and that is why he is to be worshiped. If i, as a mortal, can hide from God, or do something that God can't stop, then I've effectively negated his power, and why does he retain power over humanity if humans can thwart him?
Another thing is that some OVers here have seemed to redefine free will now. Free will, as I've always been taught, means that at any time X, a being is free to do any number of things. This can mean anything as mundane as choosing Cheerios over Rice Krispies, or choosing to murder or spare someone. Morality has nothing to do with free will, per se. Where morality comes in is that libertarians argue that free will is NECESSARY to hold someone accountable morally.
The thing laika mentions about burping and farting - well I'm sure you have knowledge of human biology. Those processes are necessary for the proper functioning of the human body. So are a lot of other "mundane", and perhaps "disgusting" actions of the human body. But no one can choose to NOT burp or NOT fart- those things will happen as they must according to human biology. Just like a heart beat, sleeping, reflexes, brain functioning, etc. Those things are not done out of free will. At any time X, Laika, do you have a choice to have your heart beat or not beat and not continue living? I doubt it.
There's also a fundamental misunderstanding of determinism, which i've gone over ad nauseum here. Basically, determinism does NOT MEAn coercion. Determinism simply means that every effect is caused. It doesn't mean that God is an evil puppeteer forcing our every move. It does mean, if you are a theist, that God determined the course of the universe, he determined your time to exist on this earth, he determined you to have a heart, a brain, legs, arms, etc. (or not, as the case may be)- and all of these things occur completely regardless of someone's free will. He determined the situation into which you were born, which unalterably affects your life choices. So in a sense, God is responsible. But God is responsible under even the most liberal OV theory- since if you affirm that God created the universe and humanity- that alone is sufficient to assign him some sense of responsibility.
Throughout scripture, you see God owning that responsibility. Does he ever throw up his hands and say, "Hey, what's going on here? Wow I really wish I could stop that. Man, I just created the universe, but how can i be responsible for what occurs in it? Don't blame me ! " No, you don't see that. You see Christ saying that not even ONE sparrow falls apart from the will of God. In Judaism, it is taught, that one should not even say that "Tomorrow I will do such and such" unless you qualify it by saying, "if God wills." B/c they acknowledge the fact that man is not the captain of his own ship. He does not determine his destiny. It is giving proper respect to the authority and sovereignty of God to do so.
As far as how can you reconcile asking for God's will to be done, if it's already going to be done? I think this is just semantics. We've already gone over this in other threads, but a distinction can be made between God's intentional will, and his permissive will. Anything at all that happens only happens b/c God permits it, in my view. That doesn't mean that God necessarily wants it to happen in that particular way. It does mean that he permits it, for some reason which is not known to mankind. He may DESIRE that something else occurs, and he certainly could bring that about if he so chose. But even so, there are reasons for him to say, "OK, this is not what I desire for humanity. NOnetheless, I am going to allow this to happen. I'm going to let nature take its course (so to speak)." Now, I don't know why he does that. That's why i've said there are problems with Calvinism and Arminianism as well - it's not like any one theology has got it all worked out neat and tidy, in my mind.
Anyway, I've rambled long enough. Just wanted to say, I am actually enjoying this thread :).
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/22/2003 1:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Fine. It looks like I won’t get responded to by Polycarp, until I deal with his text. Cool…
The Text:
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.’”
( Underlined part is VERY important)
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.
Polycarp’s commentary:
quote:
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.
Meph’s Examination:
Ok. I’m looking at the Scripture. This is what I’m seeing. I’m seeing that what God does is take a people that are ALREADY nation destroyers for the most part (v. 7) and God directs them towards Israel. I truly don’t see how this strikes OVT at its heart. The reason being, that all that an OVTer would have to say is that God used God’s influence to direct the hearts of the Assyrian leader towards ransacking Israel. But the Assyrian leader claimed complete responsibility for the attack upon Israel and God punished him for that arrogance. Pretty simple.
This seems like an opposing action of what happened with CYRUS THE PERSIAN KING. Unlike the Assyrian king, Cyrus seemed to ACKNOWLEDGE that he was a tool in God’s hand to some extent and did so with respect.
2 Chronicles 36:22-23
In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD stirred up the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia so that he sent a herald throughout all his kingdom and also declared in a written edict: “Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the LORD his God be with him! Let him go up.”
What God SAYS about Cyrus via Isaiah:
Is. 44:28
who says of Cyrus, “He is my shepherd,
and he shall carry out all my purpose”;
and who says of Jerusalem, “It shall be rebuilt,”
and of the temple, “Your foundation shall be laid.”
Is. 45:1
Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus,
whose right hand I have grasped
to subdue nations before him
and strip kings of their robes,
to open doors before him—
and the gates shall not be closed:
Is. 45:13
I have aroused Cyrus in righteousness,
and I will make all his paths straight;
he shall build my city
and set my exiles free,
not for price or reward,
says the LORD of hosts.
Now, let’s think clearly people. This is simple as ABC. It would be a ABSURDLY simple matter to say that God had essentially the same activity with the Assyrian leader that he did with Cyrus. Cyrus was a GOOD BOY, acknowledged that it was GOD that helped him ascend, and did EXACTLY what God wanted. The Assyrian leader acted like it was ALL HIM and DIDN’T do exactly what God wanted. God spoke WELL of Cyrus. God DIDN’T speak well of the Assyrian leader.
What the heck does this have to do with the fundamental premises of open view theism? Not a dang thing. If this were TRULY about compatibilism on a metaphyscial level, there would BE no felt sense of obedience or disobedience by the person being used as tool. But OBVIOUSLY, Cyrus was VERY aware of God’s leading and power guiding him…whereas the Assyrian leader arrogantly ignored this same fact. There is no true compatibilism (ala exhaustively determined action that the beings are still morally responsible for) going on that open view would even WANT to object to!
Bottom line, Polycarp. Your essential point is NOT MADE with this text. It is completely explainable within an open view framework. I would have thought that someone else would have clearly seen this and dealt with this forthrightly. Oh, well.
NOW, will you talk to me, LL…Cool J???  NOW, will you look at my “glorification principle” with deals with things like this and more????
Sheesh….
PS: Polycarp said:
quote:
Deal with the text of Scripture. So you disagree. Demonstrate from Scripture how my exposition is wrong. I challenge you. I challenge anyone.
Ok I did that. Now TALK TO ME, dangit. We're compadres!!!
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/22/2003 2:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Kenya: you don't want to be here, fine, leave. E-mail Polyman and go away. Starkman, thanks for your wonderful post. Respect. Thats what I've been talking about. Give the people here respect for what they believe. I try as much as possible to respect all positions for what they believe, no matter how foolish I may personally think it is. People give their all trying to figure out what God is saying and Polyman jumps all here with his attitude of knowing all and if you don't agree you need to repent and if you don't agree and post something else you are ignoring the issue. Wonderful, That sure helps.
Kenya, go away. I'm sure you don't want to be tainted by all us "impure" God-denying heathens. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 8/22/2003 5:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Meph,
I think only a few delt with the Isaiah 10 passage because the rest of us saw the futility of trying to discourse Polycarp. Heavens, the passage is hardly a "big gun" against the Open View. I would loved to have jumped in and talked about it, but not the atmosphere. Don't need that here (and yup, we've all had our attitudes creep in here, for sure).
As far as dealing with the main issue, you've pretty much wrapped it. Not much else to add except that I myself would proabably afford a tad bit more leniency with regard to the foreordaining of the cross and death of Jesus. The futurity of human population up to, say, 10,000 people, for example, might have gone differently had no one sinned at this count; this amount of population may have sufficed to fulfill God's plan, and no cross would have been needed. But this is almost splitting hairs and merely hypothesis. Otherwise, yes, seems as if it was a no-brainer that sooner or later someone was going to bite the apple.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/22/2003 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | | | "It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood," Mr. Rogers... | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/22/2003 7:28 PM (GMT -6) | | | Poor Fred Rogers...rolling over in his grave... | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/22/2003 7:46 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/23/2003 4:46 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Fine. It looks like I won’t get responded to by Polycarp, until I deal with his text. Cool…
The Text:
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.’”
( Underlined part is VERY important)
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.
Meph’s Examination:
Ok. I’m looking at the Scripture. This is what I’m seeing. I’m seeing that what God does is take a people that are ALREADY nation destroyers for the most part (v. 7) and God directs them towards Israel. I truly don’t see how this strikes OVT at its heart. The reason being, that all that an OVTer would have to say is that God used God’s influence to direct the hearts of the Assyrian leader towards ransacking Israel. But the Assyrian leader claimed complete responsibility for the attack upon Israel and God punished him for that arrogance. Pretty simple.
Simple? I'd say, simplistic. It doesn’t address crucial aspects of the text. It does not prevail against my earlier claims that Isaiah 10:5-19 devastates open theism’s foundational assumption.
Polycarp’s Expanded Exposition of Isaiah 10:5-19
In Isaiah 10:5 the Lord announces that he will pour out his wrath upon Assyria, as he declares, “Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath!” Take careful note that the Lord identifies the Assyrian as “the rod of my anger.” The Assyrian, in other words, is “the club of wrath in God’s own hand.” The Assyrian so completely belongs to the Lord who is sovereign over him that the Assyrian is the club in the Lord’s hand by which he will punish Israel. Take careful note that the punishment that will fall upon Israel is the Lord’s action. The Lord will punish Israel by devastating her with his club which is the Assyrian.
But why should the Lord announce woe and condemnation to the Assyrian who is the club in the Lord’s hand by which he will punish Israel? In Isaiah 10:6-7 the Lord begins to explain, “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.”
Now the Lord explains what he means about the Assyrian being his club and his rod of anger. The Lord will send the Assyrian to destroy Israel. In this one grand act of destroying Israel, Isaiah 10:5-19 makes it clear that the Assyrian, who is ungodly and arrogant and defiant and imagines that he is utterly self-determining and autonomous, is but the tool of wrath in the Lord’s hand. The passage makes it clear that the Assyrian who has his own utterly wicked purposes to destroy Israel (expressed in Isaiah 10:7-11) will accomplish the Lord’s purpose by destroying Israel.
In other words, both God and the Assyrian are active in this singular grand act of destroying Israel. According to the text, both God and the human would be personally active in this same action which God says will surely take place, namely the waging of war against Israel. The Lord will not punish Israel by a miraculous act, such as fire from heaven. Also, the Lord is not an “observer” in these matters. The Lord does not see that the Assyrian is becoming aggressive and then say to himself, “Hmmm! Perhaps the Assyrian will destroy Israel. I anticipate that he will do the dirty work that I want to have done against Israel, so that now I can confidently announce to Israel their impending destruction.” No! This is not how the Scripture text presents the matter. Furthermore, the Bible’s text does not allow us to reason that the Assyrian planned to do his evil against Israel and that the Lord, after the Assyrian carried out his evil, would announce his righteous judgment after the fact. Instead, the Lord raised the Assyrian up to do his work of punishing Israel for her ungodliness. Yet, the Assyrian was hardly godly. The godless and arrogant Assyrian was king over a godless nation of people, a people surely no better, if not worse, than Israel. The very thing the Assyria devised for his own evil purposes, the Lord planned for his own righteous purposes. God’s righteous judgment, in other words, would be carried out by the wicked Assyrian, just as the Lord planned. In the wicked Assyrian’s actions God would also act to punish Israel.
The biblical text will not permit us to reason that God could not act in the godless Assyrian’s action without over-riding the godless Assyrian’s willful purpose to do his own wicked deeds. As a matter of fact, the Bible makes it absolutely clear that the godless Assyrian’s godless destruction of godless Israel was God’s righteous action of punishment. God’s action to punish Israel through the Assyrian’s wicked actions does not negate the wicked Assyrian’s accountability for his wickedness in carrying out the destruction of Israel. Isaiah 10:12ff makes this abundantly clear. Isaiah 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.”
Now, take special care not to miss or to distort what the biblical text plainly says. “When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem. . . .” This makes it plainly obvious that the godless Assyrian’s god-defying destruction of godless Israel was God’s work. The godless Assyrian claimed, “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.” He goes on to boast of the ease with which he carried out his plunder: “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.” These claims properly belong to the Lord, not to the godless human, the Assyrian. For only God has such power and authority. The very thing the godless Assyrian did from his godless and willful boast, is the very thing God claims he himself did. “When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem. . . .”
Yes, the Assyrian boasted that he was responsible, by the strength of his power, for the destruction of Israel. The Lord holds the Assyrian accountable for his godless and arrogant destruction of Israel. (If the Assyrian had properly acknowledged the Lord God, he would not have suffered under God's punishing hand for destroying Israel.) Nevertheless, at the same time, Isaiah’s text makes it clear that the Lord himself did the work of destroying Israel, the very work the godless Assyrian did. How can this be? This is compatibilism. This is precisely the thing that open theists rejected from the beginning when they first trotted out open theism to preserve human freedom and to explain how God conducts himself with libertarian free creatures.
Yet, the Scriptures are clear that God acted to punish Israel in and through the godless Assyrian’s boastful acting to destroy Israel. This demonstrates the fallacy of open theism’s foundational and undemonstrated assumption that humans and God cannot both be active in a single action without God over-riding the human’s will, thus negating the human’s accountability. God acted in the godless Assyrian’s act. God holds the godless Assyrian fully accountable for his godless and boastful act. God is not accountable for the godless Assyrian’s wickedness nor for wickedly performing the deed of punishing Israel. Yet, the Lord claims that he himself performed the punishing act against Israel that the wicked Assyrian performed.
Bottom line, MephEternal, my essential point has been established on the basis of Isaiah 10:5-19.
As I said in my off-board e-mail to you, you will have to show me where the “Glorification principle” thread is. Please do so when you privately send your e-mail reply to mine.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/23/2003 6:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Sorry for the delay, Polycarp. I’ve been meaning to get back to you tonight. But it seems that you’ve already posted. I’ll respond to your email tonight too. 
Let’s do this. I’ll go step by step with your more in-depth exposition.
Polycarp:
quote:
In Isaiah 10:5 the Lord announces that he will pour out his wrath upon Assyria, as he declares, “Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath!” Take careful note that the Lord identifies the Assyrian as “the rod of my anger.” The Assyrian, in other words, is “the club of wrath in God’s own hand.” The Assyrian so completely belongs to the Lord who is sovereign over him that the Assyrian is the club in the Lord’s hand by which he will punish Israel. Take careful note that the punishment that will fall upon Israel is the Lord’s action. The Lord will punish Israel by devastating her with his club which is the Assyrian.
No problem here. This is basically saying that God is acting upon the Assyrian to use him as he wishes. Ok. Again, this is NOT incompatible with the open view worldview.
******************************
Polycarp:
quote:
But why should the Lord announce woe and condemnation to the Assyrian who is the club in the Lord’s hand by which he will punish Israel? In Isaiah 10:6-7 the Lord begins to explain, “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.”
I agreed with this. God is sending him to LOOT and PLUNDER Israel. The Assyrian king wants to RAZE it. Thus, he wants to go BEYOND what God is leading him to do. And this is why part of why God is punishing him. Yes, the Assyrian king is going to do what God wants, but the insolence and arrogance WILL be punished. Yep. I’ve been with this.
******************************
Polycarp:
quote:
Now the Lord explains what he means about the Assyrian being his club and his rod of anger. The Lord will send the Assyrian to destroy Israel. In this one grand act of destroying Israel, Isaiah 10:5-19 makes it clear that the Assyrian, who is ungodly and arrogant and defiant and imagines that he is utterly self-determining and autonomous, is but the tool of wrath in the Lord’s hand. The passage makes it clear that the Assyrian who has his own utterly wicked purposes to destroy Israel (expressed in Isaiah 10:7-11) will accomplish the Lord’s purpose by destroying Israel.
Again, I would agree. What I don’t think you are understanding, Polycarp, is that open view theism doesn’t HAVE to negate ALL forms and instances of any compatibilistic or micromanaging action. Sure, SOME open view theists may do this. But it is not INHERENT in the view itself. I have pointed this out numerous times in the past.
******************************
Polycarp:
quote:
In other words, both God and the Assyrian are active in this singular grand act of destroying Israel. According to the text, both God and the human would be personally active in this same action which God says will surely take place, namely the waging of war against Israel. The Lord will not punish Israel by a miraculous act, such as fire from heaven. Also, the Lord is not an “observer” in these matters. The Lord does not see that the Assyrian is becoming aggressive and then say to himself, “Hmmm! Perhaps the Assyrian will destroy Israel. I anticipate that he will do the dirty work that I want to have done against Israel, so that now I can confidently announce to Israel their impending destruction.” No! This is not how the Scripture text presents the matter. Furthermore, the Bible’s text does not allow us to reason that the Assyrian planned to do his evil against Israel and that the Lord, after the Assyrian carried out his evil, would announce his righteous judgment after the fact. Instead, the Lord raised the Assyrian up to do his work of punishing Israel for her ungodliness. Yet, the Assyrian was hardly godly. The godless and arrogant Assyrian was king over a godless nation of people, a people surely no better, if not worse, than Israel. The very thing the Assyria devised for his own evil purposes, the Lord planned for his own righteous purposes. God’s righteous judgment, in other words, would be carried out by the wicked Assyrian, just as the Lord planned. In the wicked Assyrian’s actions God would also act to punish Israel.
AGAIN, I AGREE. I am getting more and more convinced, good sir, that the problem is that you are not attacking open view theism as much as you are a FORM of it that doesn’t acknowledge the potential existence of compatibilism and/or micromanagement in any form. To the extent that one DOES acknowledge this, there is NO problem. I’m hoping that you see this.
What an open view theist would say in contrast to you is the following: It is possible that the Assyrian king’s arrogant, ungodly nature was NOT primarily orchestrated and solidified God, but that God USED that solidified nasty character in a COMPATIBILISTIC fashion! That’s all.
******************************
Polycarp:
quote:
The biblical text will not permit us to reason that God could not act in the godless Assyrian’s action without over-riding the godless Assyrian’s willful purpose to do his own wicked deeds. As a matter of fact, the Bible makes it absolutely clear that the godless Assyrian’s godless destruction of godless Israel was God’s righteous action of punishment. God’s action to punish Israel through the Assyrian’s wicked actions does not negate the wicked Assyrian’s accountability for his wickedness in carrying out the destruction of Israel. Isaiah 10:12ff makes this abundantly clear. Isaiah 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.”
Polycarp, you and I are tracking. You DO see this, right? It’s all in my post!
******************************
Polycarp:
quote:
Now, take special care not to miss or to distort what the biblical text plainly says. “When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem. . . .” This makes it plainly obvious that the godless Assyrian’s god-defying destruction of godless Israel was God’s work. The godless Assyrian claimed, “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.” He goes on to boast of the ease with which he carried out his plunder: “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.” These claims properly belong to the Lord, not to the godless human, the Assyrian. For only God has such power and authority. The very thing the godless Assyrian did from his godless and willful boast, is the very thing God claims he himself did. “When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem. . . .”
AGAIN, I agree. I completely agree that God was the factor behind what went on. But this is what I’m trying to get you to notice. When the Assyrian made his arrogant claim, IT WASN’T GOD THAT WAS BEHIND THAT. That’s why God was mad. Think about it. God established BOTH Cyrus and the Assyrian king. However, the Assyrian king, unlike Cyrus, arrogantly thought that it was HIM that did everything. A possibility. Just like God didn’t necessarily ORDAIN for Cyrus to make the claim that he did, God didn’t necessarily ORDAIN for the Assyrian king to make his arrogant claim!
Seriously, Polycarp. ALL of this is viable under an open view framework. Note that this IS NOT JOHN SANDERS’ VIEW. I have lots of problems with his framework. So, you have to get off that. I’m a NEW BREED on the real. But Doc and others here can tell you that IT WORKS. They’ve been here long enough to see it.
******************************
Polycarp:
quote:
Yes, the Assyrian boasted that he was responsible, by the strength of his power, for the destruction of Israel. The Lord holds the Assyrian accountable for his godless and arrogant destruction of Israel. (If the Assyrian had properly acknowledged the Lord God, he would not have suffered under God's punishing hand for destroying Israel.) Nevertheless, at the same time, Isaiah’s text makes it clear that the Lord himself did the work of destroying Israel, the very work the godless Assyrian did. How can this be? This is compatibilism. This is precisely the thing that open theists rejected from the beginning when they first trotted out open theism to preserve human freedom and to explain how God conducts himself with libertarian free creatures.
Polycarp, hear this well. The text makes it very plain that God’s operation was confluent with the Assyrian king. That much is certain. And I’m willing to say that some form of compatibilism was involved. However, it is clear that there was no COMPLETELY DETERMINATE compatibilism of the ENTIRETY OF the Assyrian’s life and actions. As I said before…
There is no true compatibilism (ala exhaustively determined action that the beings are still morally responsible for) going on that open view would even WANT to object to!
If this whole thing were EXHAUSTIVELY determined by God, then you would have to say that God even determined the arrogant utterance ITSELF. You would have to say that God not only determined EVERY OUNCE of the Assyrian king’s arrogance throughout life, but also every uttered word of arrogance that God Himself was going to punish. This is clearly doesn’t have to be the case…ESPECIALLY in light of Cyrus’s case. Cyrus was JUST AS MUCH A TOOL in God’s hands as the Assyrian…but Cyrus REALIZED this and ACKNOWLEDGED God. This very acknowledgement demonstrates what I’m saying: that though there is some compatibilism and/or micromanagement going on, it is NOT EXHAUSTIVELY so. UNLESS you want to say that God exhaustively determined THAT too.
Please understand again. All open view theism says at the end of the day is this: NOT ALL THINGS are exhaustively determined by God. That there IS some indeterminacy in reality. It doesn’t say anything about NO things being exhaustively or even majorly determined by God. This is where I think you keep getting hung up. See, Polycarp, the main reason that many open view theists don’t want to admit this amount of power to God is because it appears to bring the problem of evil for them ALL OVER AGAIN. But I don’t fear this. Why? First of all, because I ultimately don’t CARE whether or not open view theism is true. I honestly don’t. Second, because of THE GLORIFICATION PRINCIPLE! (I’ll search the board and give you the link)
******************************
Polycarp:
quote:
Yet, the Scriptures are clear that God acted to punish Israel in and through the godless Assyrian’s boastful acting to destroy Israel. This demonstrates the fallacy of open theism’s foundational and undemonstrated assumption that humans and God cannot both be active in a single action without God over-riding the human’s will, thus negating the human’s accountability. God acted in the godless Assyrian’s act. God holds the godless Assyrian fully accountable for his godless and boastful act. God is not accountable for the godless Assyrian’s wickedness nor for wickedly performing the deed of punishing Israel. Yet, the Lord claims that he himself performed the punishing act against Israel that the wicked Assyrian performed.
SEE! This emboldened statement shows me that you haven’t been here in a WHILE, good sir! Open view theism has NO SUCH presupposition. You are misconstuing the presupposition. It is this…
In given instance X, God cannot be EXHAUSTIVELY DETERMINING a sentient being Y at all metaphysical levels and yet say that Y is morally responsible for any actions made by Y in given instance X.
But what you are saying is this…
In given instance X, God cannot be in any way active CONFLUENTLY with a sentient being Y to perform a certain action without necessarily overriding Y’s will.
I hope that you see, sir, that these are QUITE distinct. Open view theists cannot say the first statement. But they can EASILY say the second. Please understand that.
This is why I say that your exposition of Isaiah 10:5-19 COMPLETELY misses the point. You are attacking a particular understanding of open view theism (and a pretty flawwed one at that, I might add) Isaiah 10;5-19 does nothing to assault the TRUE, NON-NEGOTIABLE presupposition of open view theism. It only assaults a TYPE of open view theism that foolishly doesn’t grant God enough providential power. That’s THEIR problem. Not that of open view theism.
******************************
I appreciate your time to answer my response and your patience with my lag on the email. I’m gonna try to dig to find the glorification principle stuff and give a brief explanation along with finding the actual thread. Gotta balance the time.
Here’s something. You remember well how much I argued with Doc and others about open view theism. I’ve read SERIOUSLY on this stuff. Getting ALL the presuppositions down and what not. It tooks like a little over a YEAR, remember. I’ve read Doc’s dissertation and all his books. All of the open view books. Sander, Hasker, et al. Got decent background in process philosophy and theology to do some comparison. All that. It was IN THIS PROCESS that I was able to see the viability of open view theism PHILOSOPHICALLY. It COULD make sense. It was already clear to me that open view theism could, with some tweaks, be viable SCRIPTURALLY. This is what happened in my “conversion” to truly being open to open theism. It was my hope with that post that people would KNOW me and that my acknowledgement of open view theism’s viability would actually cause some people to think twice about 1) assuming that open theism was a sure sign of falling to Satan 2) being an emotionally lead theological trap and 3) thinking that only people who didn’t ask the hard questions would find it suitable. I was GENUINELY hoping that this would be the case. In some cases, I think it was. In others, not.
Anyways, all this is to say that I don’t think we are far apart at ALL with respect to saying that God has MUCH, MUCH more determinative power than some open view theist give God credit for…and that it is a non-negotiable that God will get God’s glory. I just understand that one doesn’t have to go all the way to an exhaustively determined foreknowledge to assert this.
Blessings,
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/23/2003 8:41 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 176 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:42 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 |
|
|