 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 5:42 PM (GMT -6) |   | Message Go To Page 2 3 >>
Still_unsure
05/11/01 11:37 AM
Another Tragedy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was reading my local newspaper today and I came across a story about a three year old girl who wandered away from an evening church service and was struck and killed by a train in front of several horrified spectators. It is events such as this which make me feel that the Open View must be at least partly correct. I cannot reconcile the idea that God forordained this happening with what Jesus taught about God's character.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
JoeMoore
05/11/01 1:55 PM
RE: Another Tragedy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My emotions agree with you in an instant.
My thoughts agree with you in substance (that there must be at least SOME substance in the open nature of the future).
My thoughts also suggest that it doesn't take exhaustive foreknowlege to realize where a train and a little girl will be in .5 seconds. If God is sovereign (and I believe most Open Theists believe in a God that is truly sovereign), it doesn't take much imagination to come up with a way to distract a little girl and move her in a different direction WITHOUT impinging on any human being's free will (a bird could do it--a dog could bark).
We need to be very careful that we don't make excuses for God or hold His sovereignty hostage on these issues.
So there is no easy answer.
I'm reminded that we must look fully at the cross before (and while) building our theology on events like this.
Since the cross is not a tragedy (in the true, eternal sense of the word), I don't think we are in any position to determine that anything else is (in the true, eternal sense--of course this is an immense tragedy for the family, friends and the people at the scene).
However, given all these arguments both ways the open view of the future still seems the most plausible to me.
Joe Moore
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Still_unsure
05/11/01 9:45 PM
RE: RE: Another Tragedy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said.
Rob
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
05/12/01 1:30 AM
Meph Speaks From the Heart
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, my heart and prayers genuinely go out to the child's loving ones, the witness, and ANYONE involved. I cannot imagine their pain and I will not even attempt to say that I can. I pray God's peace upon their lives.
Second, I believe that with respect to the existential moment of pain, a Christian should always consider it their primary duty to be the incarnational presence of God to victims of tragedy, in prayer and personal presence. I pray that God's people are ministering and will continue to minister to all concerned in the days to come.
Third, having said the above, I choose here to comment on this theologically. This comment is not divorced of feelings of angst or existential struggle in the least. So please keep this in mind when you read. Joe Moore said the following:
"My thoughts also suggest that it doesn't take exhaustive foreknowlege to realize where a train and a little girl will be in .5 seconds. If God is sovereign (and I believe most Open Theists believe in a God that is truly sovereign), it doesn't take much imagination to come up with a way to distract a little girl and move her in a different direction WITHOUT impinging on any human being's free will (a bird could do it--a dog could bark). We need to be very careful that we don't make excuses for God or hold His sovereignty hostage on these issues. So there is no easy answer."
Right on, Joe. Lemme tell you something. If there is one thing that definitely keeps me AWAY from the open view idea, it is things like this. Darnit, THINK about it, people! God could have friggin SNEEZED and stopped this from happening. My mind snaps to the things that we could say in the open view stopped God from intervening. The free will of the little girl? Screw that. A Demon stopping God from acting? Screw that. Dr. Paul Helseth has wrote an article about just this type of thing called "Divine Ambivalence" From the standpoint of open view theism, it is LUDICROUS to say that God couldn't have made the rescue of that little girl one of the things that he wished to predestine by his OWN design. He KNEW the potentiality of this happening, because of his Infinite Intelligence. He knew when it possibly would have taken place. He can do other stuff coercively, right? He HAS done other stuff coercively! So why the heck let the little girl die? Was this little girl's life not IMPORTANT enough on God's predestination list to micromanage her safety?
The bottom line is that saying that the future is open in this case does NOT get God off the friggin hook! And we shouldn't act like it does. With the open view, we can't even say that God had a actual PLAN for this. To say that God had a plan for the girl's death wouldn't be to nice for the open view. So, we just have to plain say that God may have genuinely dropped the ball on this one. God possibly tried but couldn't do it. Does this plain tick anyone else off? Moreover what if he DID have a plan. Due to the nature of reality, his plan for this tragedy may well fail! (I'm reminded of the vast mistake that God made with respect to the married woman Doc sited in "God of the Possible." God had a "plan" for the married couple, but the husband messed it up. Why trust ANY of God's plans for our lives when even God HIMSELF can make mistakes in that regard?)
To me, the open view just arbitrarily puts tragedies like this off on Creation rather than on the doorsteps of the Creator where it belongs. To me, the open view is a friggin COPOUT in that regard. You have to forgive me. I'm trying to think of this pastorally. What would I say to the parents if they PRESSED me on this question: "Why did God let our little girl die?" Would I say that God was in NO way responsible? That God REALLY, REALLY wanted to save that little girl, but for some inexplicable reason, he couldn't. That some foul demon messed up the works? It bothers me just to even CONSIDER these options. Is this the all-powerful God that I preach about in services? The God who can change any situation? The God who can miraculous heal, deliver, and set free? To be sure, I would much rather tell them the truth of what I believe: that we cannot understand God's ways, but he knows what he is doing, and he IS the one doing. We have to look to Jesus in these times and his promise to be with us to get through these times. I will not slide the responsibility of this away from God. No way.
I do not hold my theological position for reasons of emotional or existential comfort. No way. However, I will say that this is a plus. I find it a tad difficult to biblically accept a view of God so impotent, so helpless, so unavoidably deserving of sympathy. A God so willing to believe that the eschaton makes up for every bit of horrid existential pain we experience in this friggin gamble we call "existence" Don't get me wrong. If God genuinely did choose existence to be this way, then so be it. I can't fault him. He's God...and this was His choice. But when you work it ALL out, God did this to himself by CHOICE, so the buck STILL lays at His feet. He's the one who denied himself the ability to foreknow all things. He's the one who thought this was the best way of doing things? It's ultimatly his baby. Can we all just admit this?
Dear reader, if you found this writing too full of blood, you have my sincere apologies. I've seen some screwed up stuff in my life, regarding children...from work and ministry. Dying children. Mentally disturbed children. I detest when things happen to children. But I detest even more when well-meaning people try to get God off the hook for what happens to those children. Sometimes, I just want to punch them in the face, being honest. I say let God be God and take responsibility as such. I say let's voice our angst, despair, fear, and anger to the One whom we KNOW hears us. And I say let's trust the One who has all-power because in all honesty, we have no one else to turn to. Blessed be God in the Highest.
Sometimes Very Angry at God, but Trusting and Seeking Nonetheless,
Sir Mephistopheles 2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Still_unsure
05/12/01 2:30 PM
RE: Meph Speaks From the Heart
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mephi:
I think I have graspecd you would have me/us understand God's nature. However, it will take considerably more philosophical argument for you to change my view of God from my non-interventive(for whatever reasons) God to to your utilitarian monstrosity.
There is a considerable difference between a God that plans the destruction of children for the fulfillment of His plans and a God who must endure the suffering of innocents in order for his final goals (redemption of mankind) to be achieved. I don't mean to sound harsh, but my view of God and your's seem miles apart.
your brother in Christ
Rob
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
might-be-don
05/14/01 7:37 AM
RE: RE: Meph Speaks From the Heart
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still_unsure said: "There is a considerable difference between a God that plans the destruction of children for the fulfillment of His plans and a God who must endure the suffering of innocents in order for his final goals (redemption of mankind) to be achieved. " .
I'm not sure I see any real difference... the end is the same (redemption) and the means is the same ( suffering of the innocent ). I seems to me that any way you slice it, God is responsible. It's His creation.
I still choose the God with a plan. Believing that the choices God has made are the best ones possible to achieve His end, not a roll of the dice or the whims of the evil one, I'll praise Him that He has chosen well.
don
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Still_unsure
05/14/01 11:56 AM
RE: RE: RE: Meph Speaks From the Heart
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hi might-be-don:
The difference, as I see it, is this. With determinism people are reduced to simply the means to achieve an end. They are not afforded dignity. They are objects, that is all. With the open view, God grants people autonomy, dignity and responsibility. He may choose to allow suffering if He decides to (which I feel He does most times, we aren't in the garden anymore nor have we obtained the new Jerusalem yet!) The God who predetermins all is not a God with a heart for relationship.
God bless
Rob
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
might-be-don
05/14/01 12:45 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Meph Speaks From the Heart
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still_unsure said: "With determinism people are reduced to simply the means to achieve an end. "
If it was "Q" ( sorry about the Star Trek reference, 'Q' is a being with omipotent powers that is not exactly for our good ) the "simply" might apply. We are not just talking about the idea of being determined, but of a determiner that is shown to us in Christ.
don
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
pneumatika
05/14/01 12:50 PM
RE: Another Tragedy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When all is said and done, what really matters to our construct of theism is emotion, it seems. It does not matter what God has revealed about himself to us, just that he is all-fair from our perspective.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Still_unsure
05/14/01 9:15 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Meph Speaks From the Heart
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
might-be-don:
I am not sure you understand my point. That's probably my fault as I'm not good at articulating my thoughts. It's good you bring up Jesus as a facet of God's character to examine. My original point was that I cannot beleive that the God we see shown to us in Jesus could decide to predetermine such a incident as a means to achieve his purposes. You may accuse me of emotionalism or trying to shape God into a form of "fairness" I consider more desirable. I don't agree.
If you carry determinism to it's conclusion, you don't just end up with the predetermined cruel death of children... you end up with children, even babies, in an eternal hell! Sorry, doesn't sound like the Jesus I read about.
Rob
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
05/14/01 10:16 PM
Brief and Sweet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World 1: A little innocent 3 year old girl gets hit by a train, tragically and painfully terminating her life, creating a nightmarish existence for all who love her.
World 2: A little innocent 3 year old girl lives a joy-filled, loved filled life, loved by all, loving all, glorifying God in all.
If God determines all, he simply prefers world 1 to world 2.
If God simply prefers world 1 to world 2, we have no idea what we mean when we call God "good," let alone "perfectly good." The word "good" has lost all meaning.
This is not a problem for Meph, for Meph rejects the doctrine that God is perfectly good. (As I have repeatedly said, this is laudably consistent with his Calvinistic presuppositions). It is a profound problem to the rest of us who believe God is perfectly Good.
If God is perfectly good, there must be reasons outside of God's own will which create World 2 rather than World 1.
The Open View (and Arminianism [less consistently]) posits that these reasons are the free wills of spiritual and human agents. (Obviously, if its not GOD'S will, its some NON-GOD will that causes trageties).
Having said this, the Open View doesn't pretend to know the particulars of why and how this particular tragedy occurred. But then again, no one can explain why there is an eight second interval between two cars on a freeway at a particular moment, rather than a 7 or 9 second internal. The cosmos is infinitely complex. Chaos theory folks.
Love ya'll.
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
DanielPratt
05/15/01 2:31 AM
RE: Another Tragedy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Love is something you openness believers grasp onto. Too much. Way too much. Creating a one-sided god who can't do anything but be helpless to the whims of his creation (called clay in the Bible) and justify his supreme actions seem to be your favorite things to do. I'm with this Meph 2K on this one. I'm no bible scholar, but it surprises me that someone who is one holds to the chaos theory. Why not evolution and relativity, too? I just picked up a book by Martin Luther that is blowing me away. He had no problem with suffering, for it was something for the pot to say nothing to the potter about.
With disappointment,
Dan Pratt
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
05/15/01 4:06 AM
RE: RE: Another Tragedy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Disappointed:
a) I will consider being accused of "grasping onto love... way too much" a compliment.
b) About the "potter-clay" analogy, see Jeremiah 18:1-10.
c) Do you know of any scholars who deny chaos theory or relativity theory?
Trying to encourage the disappointed,
Sleepless in St. Paul
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
might-be-don
05/15/01 7:51 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Meph Speaks From the Heart
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still_unsure,
I suppose (for me) it comes down to God creating a world where these things could happen, or one where they would happen. Either way it was God that chose the nature of this world. And, He chose for His own purposes. It was His desire to have loving relationships and not robots. If I was Gods master I'd hold him accountable ( in case you were wondering, I'm not ) .
don
ps. fatalism, not determinism, leads to the conclusion you have drawn.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
05/15/01 8:16 AM
RE: RE: RE: Another Tragedy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc says: I will consider being accused of "grasping onto love... way too much" a compliment.
GDG says: An open view critic once accused me of overemphasizing John 3:16 way too much. I was like, "Busted! you really got me on that one, my friend." GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
pneumatika
05/15/01 8:30 AM
Over emphasis?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can there be an over emphasis on God being love?
I believe there can. If a believer's concentration upon the love of God eclipses all other divine attributes, is this not a problem? That believer's theology is skewed and there is a great danger for error, serious error.
--that Pneumatika guy
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
05/15/01 8:43 AM
RE: Over emphasis?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PG: Can there be an over emphasis on God being love? I believe there can.…That believer's theology is skewed and there is a great danger for error, serious error.
GDG: Such as? I agree with you that overemphases can lead to distortions…whether the overemphasis is on love or sovereignty. Even Jesus can become an idol. Anyway, maybe you could give us some examples of “serious errors” an overemphasis on the love of God might lead to.
Thanks, GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
pneumatika
05/15/01 1:55 PM
Determinis m=Ogre?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Boyd,
How in particular is your "world 2" incompatible with meticulous predestination?
Contrary to the majority view expressed on this forum, I believe (along with countless church fathers and teachers since the early church) that God did predetermine all things and yet is intimately and personally involved in affairs of men. Doubtless, you are convinced this is some sort of logical contradiction, but I must ask why we as mere mortals think we can explain God and theodically justify Him?
--that Pneumatika guy
BTW: You seem to have reacted to Meph rather emotionally. Has he ever stated that he does not believe God to be good? Or is this just what you want to make him say because he cannot accept your doctrine of omnibenevolence?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
05/15/01 11:05 AM
RE: Determinis m=Ogre?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PG, maybe you can help me understand this: If everything in this world happens the way it happens because God meticulously wills for it to happen exactly that way, then in what sense is sin against God’s will—or is it? Mephi mentioned something about two wills of God, but I’m not very familiar with this distinction. GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
pneumatika
05/15/01 12:18 PM
Over emphasis on "God is love"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDG: I will give you two examples of distortion to biblical truth that could arise from an over-emphasis on "God is love." Perhaps there are many more, but these two immediately come to mind.
1) An over-empasis on God's love could well lead to a disregard for the holiness of God and a corresponding apathy to the seriousness of sin.
2) An over-emphasis on "God is love" could lead to an exaltation of man's free will which could lead to an anthropomorphic theism and other errors.
Thanks for the question.
--that Pneumatika guy
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:52 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 |
|
|