 |
| 
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/25/2003 5:47 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Ok. Let’s do a brief take here.
Free will: Occurs when any deliberated agency is initiated from the agent alone ON EVERY METAPHYSICAL LEVEL SAVE EXISTENCE.
Compatibilism: Occurs when any deliberated agency is initiated from the agent, but NOT from that agent alone ON EVERY METAPHYSICAL LEVEL SAVE EXISTENCE
[Note: Important to note that “save existence” part. If we are to truly say that God upholds ALL CREATION by the countenance of God’s word and power, than that means that God is operating with us all confluently on the level of existence!!]
Ok. If we look here, then we easily see why, ON THESE DESCRIPTIONS, free will and compatibilism cannot co-exist at the same time in the same being in the same event. And notice that the description of compatibilism allows for the TWO distinct types.
Polycarp, this what I’d like you to understand. If you do already, excuse the redundancy. Open view theists don’t see freedom of will as just agent self-efficacy and event initiation. They don’t see freedom of will as just an agent doing what THEY want to from who they are. Open view theists see freedom of will as agent self-efficacy that comes SOLELY from that agent. This is not saying that the agent is not influenced by external things…even God. But it is saying that on THIS metaphysical issue, there is a genuine AUTONOMY, or ontological distinction rather, of created sentient beings from God. [Note: I heighten the “this metaphysical issue” because, of course, God upholds ALL THINGS by the countenance of his power.]
Let’s just forget about the moral culpability things for right now. Let’s just get this. THIS is the reason why they want to say that it’s CONTRADICTION that free will and compatibilism can coexist in the same being at the same time with respect to the same event. Either the agent is acting COMPLETELY ALONE on all relevant metaphysical levels or the agent is NOT.
Let’s discuss this. Does this make sense?
I understand open theism's view of freedom. This is precisely why I asked the questions of Iconoclast. My point still stands. Iconoclast, given your post MephEternal, has contradicted his own assertion.
No open theist I have read, either published or unpublished, has yet accurately expressed or described compatibilism, as Calvinists use the word to describe their belief. This is a serious problem, for when open theists attempt to characterize compatibilism, as Calvinists embrace it, they invariably "caricaturize" it. I mean every open theist, from the greatest to the least of them. 
Without some qualification, your "save existence" clause does not accurately describe many open theists, both published and unpublished. Here is why. It is common to find statements from open theists that assert that not even God knows when an individual human will die. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 6:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Polycarp:
quote:
No open theist I have read, either published or unpublished, has yet accurately expressed or described compatibilism, as Calvinists use the word to describe their belief. This is a serious problem, for when open theists attempt to characterize compatibilism, as Calvinists embrace it, they invariably "caricaturize" it. I mean every open theist, from the greatest to the least of them.
Cool. How about you succinctly state it here. State it clearly and plainly and I’ll do my best to restate. That way, at least one open theist won’t caricature it anymore. AND this will allow me to see the difference between definitions.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 6:19 AM (GMT -6) | | About the “save existence” part. I realize that not representative of most open view theists. I do think that it’s extremely important to recognize though. Without dealing specifically with the tiers upon which God/world confluence operates, we’ll end up on some really sharp rocks later. Any position that ends up saying that created autonomy from God lies on ALL levels is just asking for trouble, theologically.
Plus, physical death is not the complete cessation of a being’s existence. So, when most open view theists say that not even God knows when someone will die, they most likely mean meet a physical death. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/25/2003 6:55 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Polycarp
You also said, "If God compatibilistically made Peter deny Him but still allowed Peter enough free-will choices to actually choose for or against God then that is enough." Please explain how this statement can cohere in any consistent manner with your statement above. Your statement above rules out compatibilism, because you think compatibilism destroys free-will. I'm puzzled. Can you help me understand? From where I read your two statements, they contradict one another.
Iconoclast
Perhaps the confusion is that I did not explicitly say that compatibilism and free-will cannot both exist FOR THE SAME DECISION. Either God is compatibilistically causing us to do something or we are freely deciding to do something. But I could decide A freely at at one moment and then God could decide B for me at another moment.
A married bachelor is a contradiction. But the presupposition is that we are talking about a single individual. You certainly can have married people and bachelors as long as they are different people. Peter's "decision" to deny Christ could have been compatibilistic but Peter's decision to re-affirm Christ could have been a free-will decision.
What is contradictory is to say that Peter both freely chose to deny Christ AND that God had determined him (caused him) to do it. This is a square circle or a married bachelor.
thanks,
Iconoclast
Actually, your following statement is still not clear. "If God compatibilistically made Peter deny Him but still allowed Peter enough free-will choices to actually choose for or against God then that is enough."
Is this what you mean? "If God compatibilistically made Peter deny Him but [later] still allowed Peter enough free-will choices to actually choose for [i.e., to repent of his denial] or against [i.e., not to repent of his denial] God then that is enough."
Now, if you are willing, please explain what you mean by "If God compatibilistically made Peter deny. . . ." What do you mean when you use the word "compatibilism"? What do you understand Calvinists to mean when they use the word to describe how God accomplishes his purposes among humans?
The reason I ask for clarification is that your following statement strikes me as odd.
You said, "Perhaps the confusion is that I did not explicitly say that compatibilism and free-will cannot both exist FOR THE SAME DECISION. Either God is compatibilistically causing us to do something or we are freely deciding to do something."
It seems to me that you are using "compatibilism" oddly in place of "God's sovereign moving of the human will through which God brings about his purposes." "Compatibilism," as used by theologians, is not a term set over against "free-will," as you have placed it. Rather, "compatibilism" is a word that they use to express a concept of the compatibility or accordance of God's willing and the human's willing in the same decision or action. Thus, "compatibilism" is a term used to express a concept that includes the confluent harmony of God's willing/acting and the human's willing/acting in such a manner that the human does freely what the human freely chooses to do. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 7:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Polycarp:
quote:
Rather, "compatibilism" is a word that they use to express a concept of the compatibility or accordance of God's willing and the human's willing in the same decision or action. Thus, "compatibilism" is a term used to express a concept that includes the confluent harmony of God's willing/acting and the human's willing/acting in such a manner that the human does freely what the human freely chooses to do.
Ok. This is what I’m hearing.
Compatibilism expresses a concept that includes God’s divine activity and human agency being CONFLUENT with respect to some internally willed activity "X" by a given human agent “A”…in such a way that the human being “A” freely chooses to do activity X.
Is what I’m saying correct? Gotta nail this down first.
Well, I suppose I can go ahead and ask the next question:
What does it mean to say that a human being FREELY CHOOSES to do something? Be as specific as possible please.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/25/2003 8:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Polycarp:
quote:
Rather, "compatibilism" is a word that they use to express a concept of the compatibility or accordance of God's willing and the human's willing in the same decision or action. Thus, "compatibilism" is a term used to express a concept that includes the confluent harmony of God's willing/acting and the human's willing/acting in such a manner that the human does freely what the human freely chooses to do.
Ok. This is what I’m hearing.
Compatibilism expresses a concept that includes God’s divine activity and human agency being CONFLUENT with respect to some internally willed activity "X" by a given human agent “A”…in such a way that the human being “A” freely chooses to do activity X.
Is what I’m saying correct? Gotta nail this down first.
Well, I suppose I can go ahead and ask the next question:
What does it mean to say that a human being FREELY CHOOSES to do something? Be as specific as possible please.
We humans freely choose every thought we think and every act we do in that we think and do nothing other than we desire to think or do. Of course, what we freely think and do is in keeping with our nature and distinctive individuality under the providence of Almighty God.
So, now I freely choose to follow Jesus Christ because of God's grace of new creation. Prior to being made a new creation in Christ, I did not freely choose to obey the Lord Jesus; rather, I freely chose to disobey him. God did not rape me, as John Sanders alleges, when he captured me with his grace. Rather, God freed me to freely do what is godly and pleasing to him. In other words, God changed my nature from godless to godly by his grace of new creation. Once I was blind, but now I see. Once I was dead in sin, but now I am alive in Christ.
I freely choose to eat broccoli and beets and I also freely choose not to eat mayonaise and peanuts. Nothing external to me coerces me to eat or not to eat. I eat or do not eat in keeping with my nature and distinctive individuality under God's providence that has uncoercively shaped every aspect of my being.
How's that? 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 8:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Sweet.
The idea that I hear you espousing on compatibilism is dealing with CONSTRAINTS.
I am hearing this:
Our freedom is real, but has CONSTRAINTS. This is demonstated in two ways. First, with the decision for or against God. We don’t have the freedom to choose for or against God because it is the work of the Spirit that GIVES us this freedom. So, for the unregenerated person, they do have freedom, but only in a GODLESS manner. They can make all types of free choices, but not to actively glorify God. However, once they have been regenerated, they can now use there freedom IN A DIFFERENT WAY. They now have the choice to glorify God or NOT glorify God. In short, the sovereign act of God BROADENS THE CONSTRAINTS of the will placed upon us by sin.
On another level, the constraints show up with the process of the development of a self and decision making of that self. God CONSTANTLY acts upon me in such a way that he basically GUIDES the use and development of my freedom. Imagine my freedom as water on a steep incline. And imagine divine providence as the banks of a riverbed that twist this way and that. The gravity brings the water down, but the riverbed ultimately guides where the water goes. The structure of the riverbed does NOT negate the fluidity of the water. The water “freely” or with fluidity goes right where the riverbed tells it to go. So to, I do have genuine freedom in that I make choices based on who I am, however everything that I am, all the situations that I am in, and what have you, have been METICULOUSLY ORCHESTRATED by God. This makes things such that even though MY freedom is not abridged by God, I don’t end up doing anything God doesn’t want me to do. Ever.
If what I’m saying above is correct, then I would say the following:
Compatibilism is dealing with God’s METICULOUS, CONTINUOUS ORCHESTRATION of our lives (ala micromanagment) such that any given indeterminacy that may exist is NEGLIBLE at best. This is such that genuine freedom of the will is not abridged but ALL things occur the way God desires. Compatibilism is the freedom of a created being exercised within the constraints of the its own ontology and, ultimately, God.
Is…THIS…accurate? 
"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 | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 8:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Another, probably superfluous example.
Imagine a five lane highway. You have a bunch of room for lateral movement, right? And you have have freedom to move laterally. Now what happens if you reach a place of construction work that shortens the lane availability to ONE lane. You are still free to move laterally, but the SCOPE of your freedom has been diminished. Has your freedom to move laterally been usurped or taken. Nope. Are you moving in exactly the lanes that the construction crews want you to move in? Yep.
Hmmm…
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/25/2003 9:45 AM (GMT -6) | | My response is hastily composed. It is much less complete than I would prefer, but it must suffice for now. I cannot devote any more time to it presently. To preserve time, I have embedded my comments into your note.
quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Sweet.
The idea that I hear you espousing on compatibilism is dealing with CONSTRAINTS.
I am hearing this:
Our freedom is real, but has CONSTRAINTS [that God lovingly appointed for our good when he created this universe and all that is in it]. This is demonstated in two ways. First, with the decision for or against God. We don’t have the freedom to choose for or against God because it is the work of the Spirit that GIVES us this freedom. [Before I comment here, I need to explain my following paragraph.
quote:
So, now I freely choose to follow Jesus Christ because of God's grace of new creation. Prior to being made a new creation in Christ, I did not freely choose to obey the Lord Jesus; rather, I freely chose to disobey him. God did not rape me, as John Sanders alleges, when he captured me with his grace. Rather, God freed me to freely do what is godly and pleasing to him. In other words, God changed my nature from godless to godly by his grace of new creation. Once I was blind, but now I see. Once I was dead in sin, but now I am alive in Christ.
In this paragraph, I have used the word "free" in two different senses. I have accommodated your use of the word "free" in the manner that philosophers dispute the concept. I have also used the word "free" in the biblical sense of the word. Focus upon the following statement: "God freed me to freely do what is godly and pleasing to him." When I say "God freed me," I am using the word in its biblical sense; God freed me from bondage to sin (Romans 6:18).
My point is, simply, that the Bible’s concept of freedom makes it clear that no one, not a single person born of woman, apart from Jesus Christ, has ever been free to obey God until God makes the person free through new creation. Therefore, I do not concur with your statement: “We don’t have the freedom to choose for or against God because it is the work of the Spirit that GIVES us this freedom.” Apart from God’s act of new creation, every human, while in bondage to sin, freely chooses to sin. Your next statement is more accurate: “So, for the unregenerated person, they do have freedom, but only in a GODLESS manner.”] So, for the unregenerated person, they do have freedom, but only in a GODLESS manner. They can make all types of free choices, but not to actively glorify God. [You would be thinking incorrectly if you were to reason that corollaries to this statement would be: (1) “Because the unregenerated person does not have freedom gladly and freely to glorify God, therefore the unregenerate person is constrained against his will.” Or (2) “Because the unregenerated person does not have freedom gladly and freely to glorify God, therefore God is not glorified by the unregenerate person.” God is glorified even by the wicked, but in a manner that is radically different from how God’s redeemed people glorify him. The wicked do not glorify God as people freed from sin’s mastery. They bring glory to God while defying God, for in them and through them God displays his awesome power (Romans 9:17-23). ] However, once they have been regenerated, they can now use there freedom IN A DIFFERENT WAY. They now have the choice to glorify God or NOT glorify God. [ Freedom to not glorify God is natural to sinful humans. It is not acquired by grace. ] In short, the sovereign act of God BROADENS THE CONSTRAINTS of the will placed upon us by sin. [ No. In short, the sovereign act of God brings the only kind of freedom that the Bible actually speaks of, namely, freedom to bear fruit to God (Romans 7:1-4).]
On another level, the constraints show up with the process of the development of a self and decision making of that self. God CONSTANTLY acts upon me in such a way that he basically GUIDES the use and development of my freedom. Imagine my freedom as water on a steep incline. And imagine divine providence as the banks of a riverbed that twist this way and that. The gravity brings the water down, but the riverbed ultimately guides where the water goes. The structure of the riverbed does NOT negate the fluidity of the water. The water “freely” or with fluidity goes right where the riverbed tells it to go. So to, I do have genuine freedom in that I make choices based on who I am, however everything that I am, all the situations that I am in, and what have you, have been METICULOUSLY ORCHESTRATED by God. [I do not accept your descriptions as accurately representing my beliefs concerning how God governs humans. “Meticulously orchestrated” is an expression that bleeds pejoration. It is an unacceptable expression to give voice to the biblical mystery of how God governs his creatures. I like the Bible’s imagery better than yours, though you may quibble about the difference: "The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases" (Proverbs 21:1). ] This makes things such that even though MY freedom is not abridged by God, I don’t end up doing anything God doesn’t want me to do. Ever.
If what I’m saying above is correct, then I would say the following:
Compatibilism is dealing with God’s METICULOUS, CONTINUOUS ORCHESTRATION of our lives (ala micromanagment) such that any given indeterminacy that may exist is NEGLIBLE at best. [Again, I do not accept your descriptions as accurately representing my beliefs concerning how God governs humans. “Meticulous, continuous orchestration, micromanagement” all connote things that no God-loving Calvinist would ever accept as properly describing the glorious biblical mystery of how God governs his creatures. ] This is such that genuine freedom of the will is not abridged but ALL things occur the way God desires. Compatibilism is the freedom of a created being exercised within the constraints of the its own ontology and, ultimately, God.
Is…THIS…accurate?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 10:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Polycarp:
quote:
Therefore, I do not concur with your statement: “We don’t have the freedom to choose for or against God because it is the work of the Spirit that GIVES us this freedom.” Apart from God’s act of new creation, every human, while in bondage to sin, freely chooses to sin. Your next statement is more accurate: “So, for the unregenerated person, they do have freedom, but only in a GODLESS manner.”
and…
quote:
Freedom to not glorify God is natural to sinful humans. It is not acquired by grace.
and…
quote:
No. In short, the sovereign act of God brings the only kind of freedom that the Bible actually speaks of, namely, freedom to bear fruit to God (Romans 7:1-4)
We are saying the SAME things in different languages. All that I was saying is that without the Spirit’s RENEWAL, we are not free to choose for or against God. We can ONLY choose against God, because of sin. (Hence, the statement you overtly agree with) However, AFTER the Spirit’s renewal, we NOW can choose to glorify God OR not glorify God. It’s not like after we are freed from sin that we NEVER sin. Of course, we do. But now, it truly does become within our capabilities to glorify God or sin…rather than just work against God. To use your terminology, we are NOW able to either bear fruit for God or not…whereas without the Spirit’s renewal, we didn’t even HAVE that choice before. See what I’m saying? We’re on the same page there.
***********************
Polycarp:
quote:
I do not accept your descriptions as accurately representing my beliefs concerning how God governs humans. “Meticulously orchestrated” is an expression that bleeds pejoration. It is an unacceptable expression to give voice to the biblical mystery of how God governs his creatures. I like the Bible’s imagery better than yours, though you may quibble about the difference: "The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases" (Proverbs 21:1).
and…
quote:
Again, I do not accept your descriptions as accurately representing my beliefs concerning how God governs humans. “Meticulous, continuous orchestration” connotes things that no God-loving Calvinist would ever accept as properly describing the glorious biblical mystery of how God governs his creatures.
I would quibble about the difference. I USED the whole watercourse idea to illustrate my understanding. And saying that God “meticulously orchestrates” things is NOT a pejoration in an of itself, Polycarp. I’m not one of those rhetoric spouting type open view theists, so don’t lump me in there, please. PLEASE GRANT ME GOOD WILL AND INTENTIONS! My terminology is merely DESCRIPTIVE, nothing else. I would use the same terminology if I were describing how the potter fashions the clay. It is a CONTINUOUS, METICULOUS ORCHESTRATION of the clay while on the potter's wheel. What's wrong with that?
So, are we as close as I think or what?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/25/2003 11:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Polycarp:
quote:
Therefore, I do not concur with your statement: “We don’t have the freedom to choose for or against God because it is the work of the Spirit that GIVES us this freedom.” Apart from God’s act of new creation, every human, while in bondage to sin, freely chooses to sin. Your next statement is more accurate: “So, for the unregenerated person, they do have freedom, but only in a GODLESS manner.”
and…
quote:
Freedom to not glorify God is natural to sinful humans. It is not acquired by grace.
and…
quote:
No. In short, the sovereign act of God brings the only kind of freedom that the Bible actually speaks of, namely, freedom to bear fruit to God (Romans 7:1-4)
We are saying the SAME things in different languages. All that I was saying is that without the Spirit’s RENEWAL, we are not free to choose for or against God. We can ONLY choose against God, because of sin. (Hence, the statement you overtly agree with) However, AFTER the Spirit’s renewal, we NOW can choose to glorify God OR not glorify God. It’s not like after we are freed from sin that we NEVER sin. Of course, we do. But now, it truly does become within our capabilities to glorify God or sin…rather than just work against God. To use your terminology, we are NOW able to either bear fruit for God or not…whereas without the Spirit’s renewal, we didn’t even HAVE that choice before. [If by "choice" you mean "liberty, freedom, power, right to choose," not "choice" in the sense of an "alternative" presented. The wicked always presented with two alternatives: good and evil. They lack the power and the freedom to do good. But lacking the freedom to do good does not render them unaccountable for the evil they do. ] See what I’m saying? We’re on the same page there.
***********************
Polycarp:
quote:
I do not accept your descriptions as accurately representing my beliefs concerning how God governs humans. “Meticulously orchestrated” is an expression that bleeds pejoration. It is an unacceptable expression to give voice to the biblical mystery of how God governs his creatures. I like the Bible’s imagery better than yours, though you may quibble about the difference: "The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases" (Proverbs 21:1).
and…
quote:
Again, I do not accept your descriptions as accurately representing my beliefs concerning how God governs humans. “Meticulous, continuous orchestration” connotes things that no God-loving Calvinist would ever accept as properly describing the glorious biblical mystery of how God governs his creatures.
I would quibble about the difference. [I figured you would quibble. But, permit me to explain why I still reject the descriptions and why I believe that these descriptions inherently carry perjorative connotations, even though I knew you did not use them with the intent to be pejorative. The reason they are inherently pejorative is that the terms--meticulous, orchestrates, micromanagement, blue print (not your term)--have mechanical overtones. There is nothing "mechanical" about my God. My God, the God of the Bible, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is personal and relational. He always was and always will be. Open theists have erred, supposing that the God of historic Christian faith is not personal and relational. God does not reveal himself to us by using mechanical metaphors. God reveals himself to us primarily by anthropomorphisms and imagery that bespeaks living relationship. Ah! To be sure, "The Lord is our rock and fortress." But this is hardly "mechanical."] I USED the whole watercourse idea to illustrate my understanding. And saying that God “meticulously orchestrates” things is NOT a pejoration in an of itself, Polycarp. I’m not one of those rhetoric spouting type open view theists, so don’t lump me in there, please. PLEASE GRANT ME GOOD WILL AND INTENTIONS! My terminology is merely DESCRIPTIVE, nothing else. I would use the same terminology if I were describing how the potter fashions the clay. It is a CONTINUOUS, METICULOUS ORCHESTRATION of the clay while on the potter's wheel. What's wrong with that? [Fine. But now you're talking about a potter and clay, an inanimate blob, not a person made in God's likeness.  ]
So, are we as close as I think or what? [Perhaps.]
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 2:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Polycarp:
quote:
I figured you would quibble. But, permit me to explain why I still reject the descriptions and why I believe that these descriptions inherently carry perjorative connotations, even though I knew you did not use them with the intent to be pejorative. The reason they are inherently pejorative is that the terms--meticulous, orchestrates, micromanagement, blue print (not your term)--have mechanical overtones. There is nothing "mechanical" about my God. My God, the God of the Bible, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is personal and relational. He always was and always will be. Open theists have erred, supposing that the God of historic Christian faith is not personal and relational. God does not reveal himself to us by using mechanical metaphors. God reveals himself to us primarily by anthropomorphisms and imagery that bespeaks living relationship. Ah! To be sure, "The Lord is our rock and fortress." But this is hardly "mechanical."
So it's words, then. Cool. Let's replace "CONTINUOUS, METICULOUS ORCHESTRATION" with "CONTINUOUS, CAREFULLY DETAILED DIVINE DIRECTION" Same CONTENT, different WORDS. Less mechanical overtones. Suit ya?
****************************
Polycarp:
quote:
I would use the same terminology if I were describing how the potter fashions the clay. It is a CONTINUOUS, METICULOUS ORCHESTRATION of the clay while on the potter's wheel. What's wrong with that? [Fine. But now you're talking about a potter and clay, an inanimate blob, not a person made in God's likeness.
Isaiah 64:8
Yet, O LORD , you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.
Isaiah 45:9
"Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?' Does your work say, 'He has no hands'?
Jeremiah 18:1-7
This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
Then the word of the LORD came to me: "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD . "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.
Heh. I thought you'd catch this one easy, bible language man! God doesn't have a problem with us being called clay. Also God doesn't seem to have a problem saying that his ways with us are analogous to that process. But, hey, I'll still do the language change. Just for you.
*********************
So, what I am hearing is that we DO at least seem to be on the same page as far as CONTENT regarding how the confluence between God and human agency works out. Right?
"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 | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/25/2003 2:42 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Polycarp:
quote:
I figured you would quibble. But, permit me to explain why I still reject the descriptions and why I believe that these descriptions inherently carry perjorative connotations, even though I knew you did not use them with the intent to be pejorative. The reason they are inherently pejorative is that the terms--meticulous, orchestrates, micromanagement, blue print (not your term)--have mechanical overtones. There is nothing "mechanical" about my God. My God, the God of the Bible, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is personal and relational. He always was and always will be. Open theists have erred, supposing that the God of historic Christian faith is not personal and relational. God does not reveal himself to us by using mechanical metaphors. God reveals himself to us primarily by anthropomorphisms and imagery that bespeaks living relationship. Ah! To be sure, "The Lord is our rock and fortress." But this is hardly "mechanical."
So it's words, then. Cool. Let's replace "CONTINUOUS, METICULOUS ORCHESTRATION" with "CONTINUOUS, CAREFULLY DETAILED DIVINE DIRECTION" Same CONTENT, different WORDS. Less mechanical overtones. Suit ya?
****************************
Polycarp:
quote:
I would use the same terminology if I were describing how the potter fashions the clay. It is a CONTINUOUS, METICULOUS ORCHESTRATION of the clay while on the potter's wheel. What's wrong with that? [Fine. But now you're talking about a potter and clay, an inanimate blob, not a person made in God's likeness.
Isaiah 64:8
Yet, O LORD , you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.
Isaiah 45:9
"Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?' Does your work say, 'He has no hands'?
Jeremiah 18:1-7
This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
Then the word of the LORD came to me: "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD . "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.
Heh. I thought you'd catch this one easy, bible language man! God doesn't have a problem with us being called clay. Also God doesn't seem to have a problem saying that his ways with us are analogous to that process. But, hey, I'll still do the language change. Just for you.
*********************
So, what I am hearing is that we DO at least seem to be on the same page as far as CONTENT regarding how the confluence between God and human agency works out. Right?
Unless I have missed something (which is certainly conceivable), I think we are on the same page, as you say.
Ah, yes! You did not disappoint me. I anticipated that you would gather together a few biblical passages that feature the potter-clay imagery.
I trust you understand that I'm not being a mere stickler about words. I cherish the potter-clay imagery. As far as I'm concerned, it is too grand, too full, too divinely enriched to be described with mechanistic modifiers. Hence, I never regard or present the imagery with mechanistic terms. The Bible does not feature the mechanism of the potter's wheel but the artisan's sovereignty over his craft, the clay. So, whenever I encounter any description of my beliefs concerning God that portray it with mechanistic descriptions, I offer what I believe are biblical correctives.
All open theists would do well to take heed. Portraying Calvinism with descriptions such as mechanistic, micromanage, meticulous, blueprint, et al. hardly does any justice to what we believe. As I said earlier, no God-loving and God-honoring Calvinist believes in the kind of God open theists continually sketch with their caricatures and then set fire with their torches. Such caricatures only uncover how defective their understanding of Calvinism truly is. All published open theists have been repeatedly guilty of this theological malpractice and crime. Greg Boyd even plans to publish a book with a title that exploits this kind of misrepresentation.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 5:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Good stuff. Now let’s try something…
Recapping the “page” that we are on, Polycarp. Compatibilism is dealing with God’s continuous, carefully detailed, divine direction of any sentient beings such that any indeterminacy that may exist in said beings is negligible at best. This is equivalent IN CONTENT ONLY (Extra, Extra emphasis!!) to what someone else may call “continuous, meticulous orchestration”
Ok. Now where does this idea of compatibilism fit in with open view theism, if at all?
I think that it fits its understanding of compatibilism very well. Going back to the definition I placed before:
Occurs when any deliberated agency is initiated from the agent, but NOT from that agent alone ON EVERY METAPHYSICAL LEVEL SAVE EXISTENCE.
In the idea of compatibilism we have just delved into, it is very plain that, when compatibilism occurs, God is ultimately the source of the powerful guidance and initiation of an agent’s action, even though said action does genuinely emerge from the agent. This means that the deliberated agency of the agent is NOT from that agent alone. This is almost self-evident because CONFLUENCE is taking place here.
Now, what does open view theism want to say?
I believe that, at base, open view theism wants to say that, just like God can lovingly exhibit continuous, carefully detailed, divine direction in the way described above, God can ALSO lovingly RELAX God’s divine direction such that the indeterminacy and autonomy of sentient beings EXPAND. This would be equivalent to the agent initiating agency ALONE at some points in time. This would be analogous, I suppose, to the artistic potter relaxing, but not totally relinquishing, his exertion over the clay as it spins, allowing the clay to, somewhat, make it’s OWN form as it is spinning on the wheel, either broadening or narrowing in shape. The potter does this at times and actually incorporates some of that into an end product of his own good will and pleasure.
Here’s where the “on every metaphysical level save existence” becomes important. Our symbiotic relationship with God’s spirit is DEEPLY PERSONAL and UTTERLY RELATIONAL. God upholds all existence by God’s word and power. Without God’s continual sustanance for our existence, we would cease to exist. This occurs for ALL sentient beings at ALL times…regardless of whether or not compatibilism is in effect. Keeping the analogy of the potter, this would be the potter keeping the wheel spinning. Without this activity of the potter, the clay would NOT be forming ANYTHING.
ALL of this is saying what I’ve said before: Open view theism only says that NOT EVERYTHING is guided by God in careful, yet exhaustive fashion. That there is some indeterminacy in creation WITHIN CONSTRAINTS. Thus open view theism can ALLOW for compatibilism.
Let’s pause here. What do you think so far?
"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 | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/25/2003 5:47 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Polycarp
If by "choice" you mean "liberty, freedom, power, right to choose," not "choice" in the sense of an "alternative" presented. The wicked always presented with two alternatives: good and evil. They lack the power and the freedom to do good. But lacking the freedom to do good does not render them unaccountable for the evil they do.
Iconoclast
Doesn't lacking the power and freedom to do good mean they are not able to do good? If they are not able to do good why are they still accountable for their lack of doing good?
A child with Tourette's syndrome will sometimes swear. They are unable to stop themselves from doing this. Would it make sense to hold them accountable for their inability to keep from swearing?
thanks,
Iconoclast
Why does God hold the dumb ox accountable for goring a person? It is God's way.
The answer to your question is in Scripture, if you have eyes to see and ears to hear. Carefully and prayerfully ponder the Apostle Paul's words in Romans 9:14-20.
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”
I cannot do any better than direct you to Paul's words. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 5:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Ex. 21:28-29
When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. If the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not restrained it, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/25/2003 5:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph,
I'm off for the night. I'll try to get back to you tomorrow, DV. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 5:53 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/25/2003 6:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Polyman: your quoting of Romans 9 assumes that Icon will interpret it as you do. Therefore you assume if he reads it he will read it as you do. That may not be the case and, as such, your quoting of said verse is a non-answer. Check out how others interpret it before you assume people will take it in that way.
Finally, once again (as with the verse in Isaiah) you're arguing that a verse talking about a specfic situation can be used to apply to all of life. Not all would see it that way.
The problem here is you assume that your way is the only way that a verse can be interpreted. Assumption is a bad way to debate. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/26/2003 2:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by honorman
Polyman: your quoting of Romans 9 assumes that Icon will interpret it as you do. Therefore you assume if he reads it he will read it as you do. That may not be the case and, as such, your quoting of said verse is a non-answer. Check out how others interpret it before you assume people will take it in that way.
Honorcarp: Well, I guess that you understood my intentions rather well. There is only one correct way to understand what Paul says in Romans 9, and its meaning lies right there on the surface. It really is not difficult to understand, unless one simply refuses to accept the Apostle Paul's "non-answer" to Iconoclast's question. I'm willing to accept Paul's "non-answer": "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" I'm willing to accept this "non-answer" because God's mercy and grace have captured my heart and have quieted my heart's uprising against him. If you can't accept Paul's "non-answer," take it up with the Apostle next time you see him.
Before I teach or preach the Scriptures, I have never yet taken a poll to "check out how others interpret it before I assume people will take it in the way that I expound the text." I don't ever intend to take such a poll. God did not call me to preach and teach what scratches itching ears. You really don't like the plain sense of Scripture when it crosses up your own view. Do you? Too bad! Don't bother reading my notes, then.
P.S. Didn't I implicitly acknowledge that other "interpretations" exist (albeit wrong interpretations)? What do you suppose I meant when I said the following? "The answer to your question is in Scripture, if you have eyes to see and ears to hear. Carefully and prayerfully ponder the Apostle Paul's words in Romans 9:14-20." Believe it or not, I am quite aware that there are "interpretations" of Romans 9 that zillions of people prefer over the text's plain meaning. Once upon a time, I was one of those people. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/26/2003 4:34 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/26/2003 5:41 AM (GMT -6) | | There is only one way to interpret it, Polyman. And great scholars on both sides have disagreed on it. You should realize that, if you are going to learn how to be loving...you know, that little verse about being nothing without love...I like the plain readings of scripture. I simply don't like the arrogance of little minded individuals who cannot stand that others may honestly disagree with them on scriptures that can honestly be interpreted in another way. Some people like meat, others continue drinking milk. Hoist one up for me, won't you Polyman? | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/26/2003 5:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Polyman trumps the famous call of all determinists "who are you to talk back to God, oh man," to substain and prove his "view" his the correct one. (being the man of God that he truly his, his view is, of course, assumed to be right...and you know what the word "assume" means in this case).
I find the comments of another determinist to be very enlightening (although I am sure Polyman will disregard them like all other "opinions" that are not from his God).
John Feinberg writing in "Predestination And Free Will," makes this statement: "Many theological determinists (Calvinists) have claimed this dilemma is a paradox. They claim that both God's sovereign decree of sin and his absolute holiness must be true because Scripture teaches both. But they cannot explain how they fit together." He footnotes this passage in this way (attention Polyman: take off your preconceptions carefully): Sometimes appeal is made to Romans 9:18-21 to show that this problem is a paradox and that the believer must not ask for an answer. In verse 19 the intellectual puzzle is raised, and in verses 20-21 Paul responds. But the question posed in verse 19 raises both an intellectual problem and a problem of about the attitude of the questioner. In verses 20-21 Paul addresses the problem of attitude, but this in no way suggests that the intellectual question should not be asked or that it is unanswerable. The passage does not really substantiate the paradox position."
Food for thought for those willing to taste... | | 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 8:20 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 |
|
|