 |
| 
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 7/28/2004 5:39 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi everyone,
We are told in the Open View that God may lose some battles, but he will win the war. But what is winning the war, according to the Open View? Is it that God does the best he can, and accomplishes some of his purposes? Then nobody ever lost a chess game, if that is winning, because everybody can do what they want on the first few moves. Then the devil wins too, on that definition, and even wins more than God, in some critical areas.
And God can lose every battle from now on, in all the areas where he has already accomplished some of his purposes, because he has already won, by this definition.
Thus sovereignty is practically zero from now until the end of the war, we may not hope for God to win any more battles in a given area, if he has already won one battle there.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 7/28/2004 8:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: I would think it would be best for you to read some of the books by open theist authors before you ask such questions. I know Doctor Boyd answers such questions in "God At War," and I believe John Sanders does as well. Regardless, such questions are complex.
In the end, it seems, many times, what version of "sovereighty" makes a person most secure is what a person picks. Obviously what makes you secure is a God who controls everything. Not everyone would agree that such a "sovereighty" is befitting of an awesome God.
A person does not trust in a concept of God, but rather God. Regardless of how a person views God's sovereighty, in the end, a person has to trust in God and believe God is trustworthy to see a person through to the end.
God is powerful enough to accomplish what He deems important enough to accomplish, whether or not he controls everything because he is powerful enough NOT to control everything to accomplish what he needs to. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/29/2004 2:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
As an OV'er, I agree that using words like "war" and "warfare" is misleading. God is not in a war. But we are and angels can be (as Revelation says). And even then the conditions of that war are regulated by God. In short, I agree with Calvinists that God's doxological purposes trump God's interest in protecting humans (elect and non-elect) from suffering, etc. Indeed, according to my understanding of OV, the Father's OWN glory has necessitated the suffering of His Self, Christ, and the elect.
But the same can be said of humans. We have an interest in the well-being of our children, but we have to strike a balance with our interests and theirs. For example, I could work 12 hrs a day to give my kids more, but I have interests of my own. How much more is God still benevolent while looking out for His own glory at the expense of His creatures' suffering.
But as I've argued with you before, it is the FALL that has brought on this ugly state of affairs. It is NOT God's original intent. Your view, in my opinion, is more problematic insomuch as it says that the suffering of God, Christ, humans, angels, and animals is all the outworking of the VERY NATURE OF GOD!!
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/29/2004 6:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
A person does not trust in a concept of God, but rather God. Regardless of how a person views God's sovereighty, in the end, a person has to trust in God and believe God is trustworthy to see a person through to the end.
God is powerful enough to accomplish what He deems important enough to accomplish, whether or not he controls everything because he is powerful enough NOT to control everything to accomplish what he needs to. [feelinahole]
I think what the problem is though is that if you have a wrong image of the character of God that will directly connect to whether or not you feel you can trust him or that he even really cares about you or not. I hear some say if something was meant to be it's was meant to be. If such were true that would mean every rapist or ones committing vile crimes that it must have been Gods will for them to do so well such would violate LOVE itself which scripture states God is. The Bible says very simply that love is kind and also that God is just. I cannot believe that God is involved in forcing to take place unjust things. Others say when your number is up your number is up [meaning your time to die] This cannot be true though for the Bible says you can do things on earth to lengthen your life or you can do things to shorten it. There's no fatalism there.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 7/29/2004 4:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
FIH: I would think it would be best for you to read some of the books by open theist authors before you ask such questions. I know Doctor Boyd answers such questions in "God At War," and I believe John Sanders does as well. Regardless, such questions are complex.
Can you summarize Dr. Boyd's answers for me, though? I have posed this question time and again here, and have not gotten a satisfying answer, as far as I have heard. So I was hoping those who have read these books could give me the answer.
I have read some of Dr. Boyd's writing, in particular the invincible chess master analogy is pertinent here. But that analogy doesn't tell me what is meant by winning! That's what I want to know, and if there isn't a ready OV answer, I'm not very motivated to look for one! It's you guys' job to defend the OV...
quote:
FIH: Regardless of how a person views God's sovereignty, in the end, a person has to trust in God and believe God is trustworthy to see a person through to the end. God is powerful enough to accomplish what He deems important enough to accomplish, whether or not he controls everything because he is powerful enough NOT to control everything to accomplish what he needs to.
I do hear such statements! But that's why I posted my "time and chance" question, I don't think this assurance is actually supportable, in the Open View...
quote:
Jeff: Your view, in my opinion, is more problematic insomuch as it says that the suffering of God, Christ, humans, angels, and animals is all the outworking of the VERY NATURE OF GOD!!
Glad to try and answer objections to Calvinism. That's my job...
I would ask a question, if there were no suffering, what would there be to reward? I can't explain all suffering. But I can see enough to know that God can bring good out of the worst suffering, as in the cross:
2 Corinthians 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.
quote:
Bobber: If such were true that would mean every rapist or ones committing vile crimes that it must have been Gods will for them to do so...
The criminal has a bad purpose, but God has a good purpose in everything, though. How is it assuring to have meaningless suffering, suffering to no purpose? How is that better?
quote:
Bobber: ... the Bible says you can do things on earth to lengthen your life or you can do things to shorten it.
That is true, but that doesn't mean that the future is variable:
Psalm 139:16 ... in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them.
Thus "the wicked will not live out half their days" (Ps. 55:23), or "so you may live a long time" (Ex. 20:12) refer to the effect our decisions have, which God knows in advance.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/29/2004 5:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Psalm 139:16 ... in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them.
This translation is in dispute. Further, the context demands that the writer was at most referring to the days of gestation.
I find it simply amazing (and quite telling, actually) that you would claim to know Open Theism well enough to argue against it, and yet not have the basic integrity to study the primary source material (Open Theists' books).
I have studied and given a fair consideration to Calvin, Spurgeon, Augustine, Sproul, Edwards, Piper, and others in the deterministic camp, and have a good grasp of their philosophy, or else I wouldn't feel right talking about what they believe. Is it too much to ask of you that you do us the same courtesy? I'll even pay for a copy of GOTP for you and have it shipped to you if you promise to read it. But please have some integrity when discussing an issue, and study both sides of it.
"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 | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 7/29/2004 6:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: I made the statement because I think it is best to hear what people believe from their main sources. Aren't Calvinists always complaining that we get them wrong? That we misquote Calvin? I agree with John: if you are going to feel qualified to argue a position, you should know it from its primary sources.
I find it hard to believe that people would base theology on the Psalms, which are poetry and not the history books, where it is reported that God changes his mind.
Lee: aren't you motivated by truth, regardless of where it takes you? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/29/2004 9:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's what I think: God wants loving relationships. But His kind of love is two ways. It's not one person forcing the other to love or even one person making the other want to love. This is tricky, because in a softer sense of the word, God does make me want to love. Here I'm using "make" to mean something like "cause one option to be appealing" not "coerce". I see two subtly (but significantly) different meanings for "make" or "cause".
Now, if God creates us and we love Him, that makes sense (For the kind of love I'm attributing to God). Or, if we love God and He knew we would, that also makes sense. But if God made us knowing that we would love Him and we love Him, we have a contradiction. Because in this senario, with my specific definition of "love", the love was forced from us by God. Even if we wanted to love Him and even if we would have chosen to love Him, we had no choice. Offering a person no choice but to do what you would have them do is just another form of forcing or coercing them, even if they want to do that very thing. If I'm being forced by someone, it doesn't matter whether I want to do what they say or not, and it doesn't matter if I want to be forced or not. None of these change the fact that I'm being forced, and my (and I, in the humblest way possible, submit God's) love doesn't allow for forcing.
So, on to winning. What God wants are loving relationships. Before He started this world He had loving relationship within the Trinity. So, objective #1: Survive. He will suceed in that one. Objective #2: Get more loving relationships. This one's tricky. By definition He can't force it to happen, so all He can do is make as likely as possible. When I say God can or can't do something, there is also a loaded meaning to remember. God can't force this kind of relationship, not because He is essentially unable, but because He has chosen to go for unforced, loving relationships. Objective #3: Keep those loving relationships that are built. This is where perseverance of the saints comes in. I have an opinion, but it's not essential to this discussion. Either way those who choose loving relationship (either at the initiation of the relationship or the end of life) are promised by God that the relationship will survive death by means of resurrection.
On objectives 1, 2, and 3 (all of which boil down to love) God will win. He will survive, cause love with others to be as likely as possible, and keep those relationships. I don't think too many people will argue with the structure of my arguement, but I know tons of people disagree with my definition of love premise. When arguing for a definition of love I think we must look to Jesus and how God treats people. I'll leave it at that for now. Isn't objective a stupid sounding word?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 7/29/2004 9:56 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
Hi everyone,
We are told in the Open View that God may lose some battles, but he will win the war. But what is winning the war, according to the Open View? Is it that God does the best he can, and accomplishes some of his purposes? Then nobody ever lost a chess game, if that is winning, because everybody can do what they want on the first few moves. Then the devil wins too, on that definition, and even wins more than God, in some critical areas.
And God can lose every battle from now on, in all the areas where he has already accomplished some of his purposes, because he has already won, by this definition.
Thus sovereignty is practically zero from now until the end of the war, we may not hope for God to win any more battles in a given area, if he has already won one battle there.
Blessings,
Lee
Jesus won the battle over sin and death and hell - by dying and rising again. But for the time being the battle rages on. He will reign victorious, and we shall share in that final victory. Without a battle, there wouldn't be a victory.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/30/2004 1:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
quote:
I would ask a question, if there were no suffering, what would there be to reward? I can't explain all suffering. But I can see enough to know that God can bring good out of the worst suffering, as in the cross:
When God created, He said that everything was VERY GOOD. Then there was the Fall - and the not so good came into play. So if the pre-Fall world was VERY GOOD, explain how your view of suffering plays into it. As John said, your view requires that God is fighting against Himself in the redemptive process.
The reason why that is so absurd is precisely because you have NO explanation of why God would bring about so much seemingly pointless suffering. You believe God will save evil people and angels AFTER they are judged for their wrong-doing, do you not? Thus, your reward explanation doesn't explain THEIR suffering - i.e., it is unrelated to any GOOD reward. And it is the vast number of non-elects' suffering that is of such magnitude.
The bottom-line is, the Bible seems to read pretty clear along the lines that the Fall was NOT intended and that God is redeeming for Himself and the Heir of Creation (Christ) a people in spite of the Fall - and that redeemed people must suffer WITH the Heir to inherit with Him. Suffering which has no good purpose is what Galatians calls "vain." And that is the great tragedy of it. And that is why love and mercy are such virtues, because suffering is required to alleviate suffering.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/30/2004 2:37 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 7/30/2004 3:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
John: "Winning" for the Open View means precisely the same thing as the BIBLE says when it says:
Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
And the beast, false prophet, and the devil were all cast into the lake of fire.
And there shall be no more pain; for God himself shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.
But these prophecies might all be wrong! According to the Open View...
quote:
So how is it not true that in your view God is fighting against himself when he battles against evil?
Because he is not the source of evil. But God is not put out by the wicked:
Psalm 2:4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.
He thinks it's funny when people oppose him! It's pretty hilarious, and it's no contest...
James 2:19 ... the demons also believe, and shudder.
God has a good purpose for the battle! But no one will give him a run for his money.
Isaiah 40:15 Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket; they are regarded as dust on the scales; he weighs the islands as though they were fine dust...
quote:
Psalm 139:16 ... in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them.
John: This translation is in dispute. Further, the context demands that the writer was at most referring to the days of gestation.
Yes, there are alternatives, but I think "days of gestation" is less likely here.
"The Lord's writing in the book (cf. 51:1; 69:28) refers to God's knowledge and blessing of his child "all the days" of his life (cf. Eph 2:10). His life was written in the book of life, and each of his days was numbered." (Expositor's Bible Commentary)
quote:
John: I find it simply amazing (and quite telling, actually) that you would claim to know Open Theism well enough to argue against it, and yet not have the basic integrity to study the primary source material (Open Theists' books).
FIH: I agree with John: if you are going to feel qualified to argue a position, you should know it from its primary sources.
I have read some Greg Boyd, though. I think those who are experts can set me straight quickly, if I have misunderstood some aspect of OV. I don't think expert status in OV is required to ask questions! And you guys are supposed to be primary sources! Not to mention Dr. Boyd, who drops in and posts occasionally.
quote:
FIH: I find it hard to believe that people would base theology on the Psalms...
Jesus did! See Mt. 22:42-45...
quote:
... aren't you motivated by truth, regardless of where it takes you?
Yes I am! That is why I am willing to hope that all may be saved, because I believe that hope is taught in Scripture, though people do call me a friend, if not a brother, of Harry Tick.
Back to the topic, though!
quote:
Sahid: What God wants are loving relationships. ... objective #1: Survive. ... Objective #2: Get more loving relationships. ... Objective #3: Keep those loving relationships that are built.
I agree with this! But I don't see how there is a definition of winning here, if not everyone loves God. If most people don't love God. What would it be like if God lost? If no one ever loved God? Then we're back to saying "accomplish some of your purpose" is winning, which guarantees nothing, once you have accomplished something already.
quote:
Jo-Anne: Jesus won the battle over sin and death and hell - by dying and rising again. But for the time being the battle rages on. He will reign victorious, and we shall share in that final victory. Without a battle, there wouldn't be a victory.
I agree again! But again, not everyone is delivered from sin and death and hell. How is it that we will share in that final victory, if God is estimating the future, and could be wrong about this? Again, what is the prospect, and what is the comfort for God's people, if "winning" means nothing is actually guaranteed? And thus it really may mean nothing, to us, at least.
And back to Calvinism!
quote:
Jeff: ... you have NO explanation of why God would bring about so much seemingly pointless suffering.
But its not pointless! That's my view...
quote:
You believe God will save evil people and angels AFTER they are judged for their wrong-doing, do you not? Thus, your reward explanation doesn't explain THEIR suffering - i.e., it is unrelated to any GOOD reward.
But if we can see the good result of some suffering, that gives me reason to hope that God can bring good out of all suffering. Especially in view of the cross! The worst suffering, and the most good...
quote:
Suffering which has no good purpose is what Galatians calls "vain." And that is the great tragedy of it.
How is that better than meaningful suffering, though? And love and mercy do not affect meaningless suffering, otherwise the suffering would not be meaningless...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 7/30/2004 5:44 PM (GMT -6) | | | Lee: when are you going to read the material so you'll what you are talking about? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/30/2004 9:27 PM (GMT -6) | | I believe God has set for Himself a God-sized task. He has given people free wills and the power to use them. Not everything is up to Him. He is dealing with people who can make up their mind independently of Him (at least to a degree).
I don't think it's about winning. Open theists use the war analogy, but this is where it starts outliving it's usefulness. It becomes more confusing than informative. God will win over Satan. That is clear. Satan would have us separated from God, and wants to de-throne God. God has dealt with the separation on the cross and in the resurrection, and He will not be de-throned. But God isn't trying to beat us or conquer us. He is trying to love us.
Once Satan is beaten (and he is), we are free to have loving relationship with God. But God still won't force us. By forcing us He would only win against love itself. He's not trying to win against us; He's trying to win with us.
If "winning" is the zero-sum kind of winning where one side wins and the other side loses, then that's the kind of winning that God has over Satan. But there is more to the story, not another battle, but a conversation, a wooing (a horrible word, but I can't think of a better one). Sure, if we don't accept Christ's love, God doesn't get what he wants, but there are examples of God not geting what He wants in the Bible. The vineyard prophecy and Jesus yearning to "gather Jerusalem under His wings" come to mind. But even then, God is doing the most loving thing by not forcing us to love Him. If He were to make love for Him inevitable, He is no longer a God of love, but a God of servitude. God could rule with an iron fist, but His amazing love is displayed in His gentle touch.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 7/31/2004 6:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
FIH: when are you going to read the material so you'll what you are talking about?
Because I'm not trying to present the Open View here.  I'm trying to be careful not to misrepresent the OV, but I think I do know enough to ask questions. And I have read some OV writings. But again, you guys (and gals) are supposed to be defending this view, I assume you have done your homework, to be able to defend your view, and my homework is (primarily) to be able to explain and defend my view.
When people say "read the books!" when I ask this question, and that is all the answer I get, from people who have read the books, that does not motivate me. To read the books...
quote:
Sahid: Once Satan is beaten (and he is), we are free to have loving relationship with God. But God still won't force us. By forcing us He would only win against love itself. He's not trying to win against us; He's trying to win with us.
Two points, first, how is Satan beaten, if winning means accomplishing some of his purposes? If that is not winning, then what is? Next, if winning is establishing loving relationships, again, how is the war won? I understand the OV to be saying that each individual is to be won or lost, thus what does overall victory mean?
quote:
Sahid: God is doing the most loving thing by not forcing us to love Him. If He were to make love for Him inevitable, He is no longer a God of love, but a God of servitude. God could rule with an iron fist, but His amazing love is displayed in His gentle touch.
That is part of the appeal of the OV, certainly. But it's a different subject, we are assured that God wins the war, and I wonder what that means. You are saying God doesn't force love, so I don't understand how this is compatible with saying he wins, regardless of how people choose.
quote:
Lee: But these prophecies might all be wrong! According to the Open View...
JEE: These are unconditional prophecies concerning God's ultimate victory. No published Open Theist has ever said that God will not be able to bring to pass his purposes and win in the eschaton.
I know they do say that, people here just said that in this very thread, so I'm not unaware of this claim being made. I say it's inconsistent, though! The devil is apparently compared with Tyre in Ezekiel 28, and I'm busy trying to defend the view that the prophecy about Tyre was fulfilled! OV people are busy saying it was not. So if the prophecy about Tyre can fall down, why can't the whole prophecy about Tyre fall down, including the part that mentions judgment for the devil? "You will be no more" (Eze. 28:19). Maybe not...
quote:
JEE: No one who ever posts here (except Dr. Boyd) is a "primary source" on the Open View. Give me a break.
OK, one break for you. I should have said some other kind of source, you all are the ones who have taken up the cause of defending the OV here, and know the material, that is what I meant.
quote:
JEE: The following is a good basic overview by Dr. Boyd of the warfare motif.
Thanks for the reference. Let's see...
"Whatever Yahweh decides to do in history he can most certainly carry out!"
I agree!
"The statements are thus probabilistic regarding consequences of the present, and they are conditioned on present behavior. In other words, they do not entail that God's mind is a sort of crystal ball, which sees into the future."
I claim that is inconsistent.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/31/2004 7:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
quote:
And back to Calvinism!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff: ... you have NO explanation of why God would bring about so much seemingly pointless suffering.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But its not pointless! That's my view...
But I've already said you have no EXPLANATION as to how the non-elects' suffering is causally or otherwise related to their glorification. If you do, please provide it. If you don't, your view is simply YOUR view.
When I read scripture, I get the distinct impression that we are to take it as conservatively as possible from such statements as "don't add" and "don't take away." It is that approach which compels me to restrain from believing what makes me feel better. Obviously, all OV'ers would be delighted to find that ALL will be saved; we just don't see the justification for such a claim. Moreover, even if universalism IS true, it would have no bearing on OV as I understand it. The non-elects' sufferings in this life would still seem to be vain and tragic.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You believe God will save evil people and angels AFTER they are judged for their wrong-doing, do you not? Thus, your reward explanation doesn't explain THEIR suffering - i.e., it is unrelated to any GOOD reward.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if we can see the good result of some suffering, that gives me reason to hope that God can bring good out of all suffering. Especially in view of the cross! The worst suffering, and the most good...
But HOPE is NOT KNOWLEDGE. Biblical hope is to be based upon biblical KNOWLEDGE. We KNOW that the elects' suffering is related to our reigning, etc. BECAUSE the scripture clearly says so and why. It does NOT clearly say any such thing about the non-elects' suffering.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suffering which has no good purpose is what Galatians calls "vain." And that is the great tragedy of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is that better than meaningful suffering, though? And love and mercy do not affect meaningless suffering, otherwise the suffering would not be meaningless...
I didn't say that VAIN suffering is BETTER than meaningful suffering. I'm saying I don't see any statement in scripture that says that the non-elects' suffering is related to any future glorification or future GOOD. Thus, from a scripturalperspective, those sufferings are meaningless, vain, and pointless from a biblical-universalist point of view as far as I can tell.
Now from the OV, pointless sufferings are consistent with a benevolent God - for God sees them as tragic and not a fulfillment of His desires. But from your view, they are the outworking of God's nature. The bottom line is, there MAY BE a relation between the non-elects' suffering and some future good for them. But I'm a sola-scriptura kinda guy, so I'm not moved by such unwarranted beliefs - again, because I think scripture commands us to take a conservative approach to hermeneutics.
And it may be that love and mercy do not affect meaningless suffering; maybe love and mercy can only diminish or eliminate any future meaningless sufferings. Those virtues are still such because they require self-sacrificial suffering.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/1/2004 11:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
quote:
Jeff: ... you have NO explanation of why God would bring about so much seemingly pointless suffering.
Lee: But its not pointless! That's my view...
Jeff: But I've already said you have no EXPLANATION as to how the non-elects' suffering is causally or otherwise related to their glorification. If you do, please provide it. If you don't, your view is simply YOUR view.
I don't say all suffering results in glory. But I do say it's not pointless. If it brings about a good result, it's not meaningless.
Proverbs 20:30 Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being.
quote:
Obviously, all OV'ers would be delighted to find that ALL will be saved; we just don't see the justification for such a claim. Moreover, even if universalism IS true, it would have no bearing on OV as I understand it. The non-elects' sufferings in this life would still seem to be vain and tragic.
I really haven't examined the implications for OV people hoping that all may be saved. But there are verses that give such a hope! Let's not take them away, as you mentioned about Scripture:
Romans 11:32-33 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
quote:
Lee: But if we can see the good result of some suffering, that gives me reason to hope that God can bring good out of all suffering. Especially in view of the cross! The worst suffering, and the most good...
Jeff: But HOPE is NOT KNOWLEDGE. Biblical hope is to be based upon biblical KNOWLEDGE. We KNOW that the elects' suffering is related to our reigning, etc. BECAUSE the scripture clearly says so and why. It does NOT clearly say any such thing about the non-elects' suffering.
How about the suffering of the elect before they were converted, though? The good result was that this was part of bringing them to God. And if I see the worst suffering, in the cross, and the most good coming from that, then I am confident that God can bring good out of lesser suffering. If all may be saved, then the non-elect become elect, and all we may say about the elect's suffering then applies to the non-elect, too.
Romans 9:25-26 As he says in Hosea: "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"
quote:
Jeff: Now from the OV, pointless sufferings are consistent with a benevolent God - for God sees them as tragic and not a fulfillment of His desires. But from your view, they are the outworking of God's nature.
And God has a good purpose. I think that's better than tragic suffering, and more benevolent.
How can you rejoice in any suffering, in the OV, can you ever know what is meaningless and tragic, and what is not?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/1/2004 1:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
quote:
I don't say all suffering results in glory. But I do say it's not pointless. If it brings about a good result, it's not meaningless.
Proverbs 20:30 Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being.
Keil & Delitzsch say of Pr. 20:30:
Luther hits the sense at least, for he translates -
One must restrain evil with severe punishment,
And with hard strokes which one feels.
I don't know Hebrew, but if they are right, it's talking about punishment which EVERYONE knows has a good purpose. But what about a tooth-ache? No answer there. And hoping there's one is not enough.
quote:
I really haven't examined the implications for OV people hoping that all may be saved. But there are verses that give such a hope! Let's not take them away, as you mentioned about Scripture:
Romans 11:32-33 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
The problem is, Paul is speaking in Romans 9-11 of the fact that the gospel is going to ALL as opposed to just the circumcision. To read any more into it is not safe exegesis in my opinion.
quote:
How about the suffering of the elect before they were converted, though? The good result was that this was part of bringing them to God.
Coming to God is by faith, not suffering. It is obvious, as in my case and C.S. Lewis' case, that coming to the truth can be a very uncomfortable experience. But in those cases, the truth CAUSES the discomfort - it is not the suffering that causes enlightenment. As a Calvinist you should know this. Don't Calvinists' believe in irresistable grace brought about by DIVINE enlightenment?
quote:
And if I see the worst suffering, in the cross, and the most good coming from that, then I am confident that God can bring good out of lesser suffering.
Obviously God CAN bring good out of the non-elects' suffering. I've already admitted that. I just don't see any evidence that He does. And I don't believe in adding to the plain contextual meaning of a text.
quote:
If all may be saved, then the non-elect become elect, and all we may say about the elect's suffering then applies to the non-elect, too.
It is not valid logic to conclude an indicative certainty from a subjunctive possiblility. Moreover, we KNOW that the non-elect are not suffering with Christ. Therefore, we KNOW that what applies to the elect's suffering CANNOT apply equally to the non-elect.
quote:
Romans 9:25-26 As he says in Hosea: "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"
Again, the only point of this quotation by Paul is to apply it to Gentile salvation vs. salvation for Israel. In it's actual context, it seems to be referring to a future generation of the nation of Israel. It has nothing to do with universalism in either context.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff: Now from the OV, pointless sufferings are consistent with a benevolent God - for God sees them as tragic and not a fulfillment of His desires. But from your view, they are the outworking of God's nature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And God has a good purpose.
I need a verse that proves that in it's actual context - not just hoping it might mean that.
quote:
I think that's better than tragic suffering, and more benevolent.
I think universalism is a very happy ending. But as I said in the last post, I don't see HOW the non-elects' sufferings would be anything other than vain and meaningless even IF universalism is true. Thus, God's benevolence in the Calvinist-Universalist perspective is "better" than the non-Universalist-Calvinism, but still philosophically indefensible.
quote:
How can you rejoice in any suffering, in the OV, can you ever know what is meaningless and tragic, and what is not?
We KNOW punishment and "suffering with Christ" have positive outcomes. We DON'T know toothaches do. This doesn't seem complex to me. I know the difference and, hence, know which sufferings to rejoice with. You won't find me rejoicing because of a toothache, though I may have joy DURING IT and IN SPITE OF IT. When Paul says to be strengthened unto all longsuffering and endurance WITH JOY, he is speaking of sufferings that we VOLUNTARILY endure for righteousness sake. Obviously, one needs no "strength" to suffer a toothache. For a toothache produces inevitable and involuntary suffering.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/3/2004 11:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
quote:
Lee: I don't say all suffering results in glory. But I do say it's not pointless. If it brings about a good result, it's not meaningless.
Proverbs 20:30 Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being. [NIV]
"One must restrain evil with severe punishment,
And with hard strokes which one feels." [Luther]
Jeff: I don't know Hebrew, but if they are right, it's talking about punishment which EVERYONE knows has a good purpose.
Well, all English translations I have checked follow the NIV. But maybe so. But maybe not! Here is another similar verse:
EZE 14:23 "Then they will comfort you when you see their conduct and actions, for you will know that I have not done in vain whatever I did to it," declares the Lord God. (NASB, UNASB, YLT)
Now this is the minority opinion, most other translations have "without cause" instead of "in vain." But maybe "in vain" is correct here! And the sufferings of Judah being worse than the punishment of Sodom (Lam. 4:6), we may hope for all suffering, that it is not in vain.
quote:
Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Jeff: Paul is speaking in Romans 9-11 of the fact that the gospel is going to ALL as opposed to just the circumcision.
That's a whole other topic! But Paul talks about people not being selected here, too, not just the gospel for everyone. Even some of the nation of Israel who hear the gospel reject it (Rom. 10:16-21). And Paul goes into why they do, it's because of God's choice (Rom. 9:18). And aren't all men without exception disobedient?
quote:
Lee: How about the suffering of the elect before they were converted, though? The good result was that this was part of bringing them to God.
Jeff: Coming to God is by faith, not suffering. … Don't Calvinists' believe in irresistable grace brought about by DIVINE enlightenment?
By irresistible grace! Though that grace may take many forms, and all these forms will bring about saving faith:
Jude 1:22-23 Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear…
quote:
Lee: If all may be saved, then the non-elect become elect, and all we may say about the elect's suffering then applies to the non-elect, too.
Jeff: It is not valid logic to conclude an indicative certainty from a subjunctive possibility. Moreover, we KNOW that the non-elect are not suffering with Christ.
If it is possible from God's perspective, and his purpose is to do it, then we may conclude he will accomplish his purpose, I think.
Matthew 19:25-26 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
And do we know that God does not bear the sufferings of all people?
Matthew 8:17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: "He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases."
I don't think Jesus just healed elect people…
quote:
Romans 9:25-26 As he says in Hosea: "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people…
Jeff: In it's actual context, it seems to be referring to a future generation of the nation of Israel. It has nothing to do with universalism in either context.
It is not unreasonable to say God can choose people who were not chosen before, though, from these examples. Paul is talking about the elect here (re. Rom. 8:24).
quote:
Lee: And God has a good purpose.
Jeff: I need a verse that proves that in it's actual context…
All right, I will insist on a verse that shows that God did not have a purpose, in one instance of suffering.
God does bear suffering, and he does so for a good purpose:
Isaiah 53:4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried…
John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
And I think these verses may indeed include all sin and suffering…
quote:
Lee: How can you rejoice in any suffering, in the OV, can you ever know what is meaningless and tragic, and what is not?
Jeff: We KNOW punishment and "suffering with Christ" have positive outcomes.
Scripture says that. I don't think Open View says that. God has to try and "minimize evil," according to the Open View. But that means there is some evil left, sometimes. Isn't that suffering with Christ, even, at times? People get killed in battle, there are casualties as well as victories. And thus that evil is pointless and simply a loss.
So how can you rejoice in suffering in the Open View, if you don't know whether it was pointless or not?
quote:
Jeff: When Paul says to be strengthened unto all longsuffering and endurance WITH JOY, he is speaking of sufferings that we VOLUNTARILY endure for righteousness sake.
I don't think this solves the problem, though. Voluntary suffering can still be meaningless, even in the cause of Christ, according to the Open View. Soldiers are sometimes casualties…
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
| 34 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:16 AM (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 |
|
|