 |
| 
MattBrown
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 74
| Posted 3/28/2005 2:45 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
My question relates to the open view in regards to thankfulness.
My Background. I have recently in the past year come into contact with the open view and have for the most part wholeheartedly adopted it. I am not well read on the subject. Formerly I would have subscribed to the "blueprint" and a soft type calvinism, though I was not part of any Reform tradition or church.
My current question/struggle with the open view deals not with the Biblical evidence, for I am convinced it is sound in that regard. It regards, how in a LFW universe can I sincerely be thankful to God for any and all things. Let me explain.
I can still clearly see many things that I can and should be thankful for. A) God's character and nature, ie his goodness, love, wisdom, grace, truth, etc. B) The incarnation and the cross and all that Christ is and did and does and offers, etc. C) The wonderful design of creation, the beauty of creation, the magnanimus plans God had and has for it and us, the invention of life, the opportunity to love and for freedom, the glory he bestows upon creation and his creatures, the gift of relationship, the gift of community/fellowship, etc. These are all huge and I in no way mean to minimize the importance of praising and thanking God for these. However, for the most part these are abstract concepts, and general/generic concepts.
I cannot figure out how I can be thankful to God for the specifics when so many factors are in play in the universe. Let me illustrate with actual issues.
1) Today, driving on the freeway I was being irresponsible and not paying attention to the road. I was almost in an accident, but it was avoided. This very well could have been a miracle. It also could have just been a near miss avoided because my reflexes were fast enough, the steering was responsive enough, I had enough caffeine in me, the weather driving conditions were favorable, etc.
2) My cousin was severely ill for a long time, the doctors at a loss. His father did some research and found a non-traditional herbal cure which has worked. This could have been a miracle or at least God divinely directing my uncle, or his web browser, or his instincts to stop and take a chance on an unproven, unorthodox product. Or my cousins immune system may just have finally beat the illness.
3) My fiancee is a gifted opera singer, currently in school for the trade, hoping to glorify God by the beauty of the music and reaching people in the eccentric niche of the opera world. Her good friend (also a Christian) is also in school for opera, but does not seem to have the talent required to get the roles and thus eventually succeed in the business. My fiancee's talent could be a miraculously granted divine gift. It could also just be genetics. Or environment. Or hard work. Or all three. Further, what can I make of her friends lack of talent? If I attribute thanks to God for the gift to my fiancee do I not have to also attribute to God the lack of gift in the friend's case?
I would traditionally be thanking God for these three examples. With this new open view in my head I seem to be unable to attribute these to God. I do understand that any and all could have been caused directly or indirectly by God, however, I also understand that I cannot be certain. In other words all specifics of me or others being blessed may or may not have to do with God acting. It would seem to me to be extreemly presumptuous to say thanks to God, if the cause may be anything other.
Why should I presume that not getting in a traffic accident was God when perhaps he did nothing? Again, the converse is, what about those who did get in accidents today? Wouldn't we tell them they can't blame God because they cannot be sure what factors were involved and especially, we cannot be sure of God's involvement, if any?
It just seems so "calvinist" for open viewers to go around thanking God for specifics and every fortunate turn in life.
Help. Somebody prove me wrong....
MattBrown
Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. - Nietzsche | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/28/2005 7:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Matt,
You ask:
Why should I presume that not getting in a traffic accident was God when perhaps he did nothing? Again, the converse is, what about those who did get in accidents today? Wouldn't we tell them they can't blame God because they cannot be sure what factors were involved and especially, we cannot be sure of God's involvement, if any?
I have the same question. I thank God for deliverances as IF He did it IN CASE He acted providentially. And regardless of whether He did so because it reminds me of all the good we experience in HIS world.
On the flip side, I DON'T ASSUME He providentially kills all (or any) people that die in accidents. In general, I'm not sure the phrase "give thanks in all things" is any more absolute than "love believes all things." In other words, I doubt we are to thank God for evils that He neither committed nor appreciates - although we should thank God for good that does come of these evils. And since we can't always know the difference, I pray non-absolutely - e.g., if such and such, thanks for...., but if such and such, thanks for.... Clear as mud?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
MattBrown
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 74
| Posted 3/28/2005 11:16 AM (GMT -6) | | I guess it just does not make sense to me to thank God "in case" he acted. I am not sure why he would appreciate that either.
Also, I am very interested in consistancy. Why assume to thank God "in case" he acted, then turn around and assume God had nothing to do with another person's lack of blessing.
Perhaps my example #3 is the easiest to flush out because it does not deal specifically with tragedy. Why assume my fiancee's voice is a gift from God and then assume that her friend's mediocre voice is not from God?
Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. - Nietzsche | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/28/2005 12:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Old Post #1
Thoughts about Providence
The other day I had an interesting experience. I was backing out of a particular parking space when some person whipped from around a corner and whizzed past me. They almost hit me. (I mean, they came really close.) After recognizing what had just happened, I immediately said "Whew! Thank you, Jesus!" But right after then, I thought about something. On what basis did I thank God (Jesus) for my not being in an accident? How do I know that God had anything to do with that car not hitting me? Couldn't it been just as probable that, due to lack of prayer, the car COULD have hit me? Couldn't it been just as probable that demonic forces would have LIKED me to have gotten in a wreck, but as blind luck would have it they didn't succeed? Or even more interesting, could hit have been that neither God NOR demons were involved...and I just straight got lucky!
This incident is indicative of the issue of providence within the open view paradigm. With respect to good things that happen to us, I don't see how we can unequivocably attribute ALL good things that happen to us as blessings from God. Even things that we've PRAYED on. There doesn't seem to be any real metaphysical reason for doing so. See, there are, as I see it, there are three aspects of "agency" in existence: God, free-willed sentient beints, and things that can reasonably be considered "chance" In discussing good things that happen in existence we can illustrate these aspects of agency, thusly...
Blessing from God ---> Free-willed Action ---> Blind Good Luck
For any good action that takes place, that "good action" could be attributed to any (OR A COMBINATION) of these. Now, the interesting thing is that, for the most part, we could never know which of these aspects was dominant or solely involved...UNLESS God, who has omniscience, SPECIFICALLY told us the dynamics (which He rarely, if ever, does) The implications from this seem fairly clear. In MANY cases, there would be no clear way to distinguish the blessing activity of God from merely diligent, good sentient activity, from dumb friggin' luck...OR any combination of the 3. As a result, many people basically place ALL good things that happen to them under the umbrella of being a blessing of God. I think the reasoning is that whether or not God ACTIVELY held off calamity (by divine fiat or angelic assistence) or whether God PASSIVELY allowed things not to happen to us, ALL the credit should be given to God. This thought is quite pervasive. One only need listen to the language of many believers in actions that many would consider to CLEARLY be human actions:
"It wasn't me. It was God working through me."
It's this type of "Footprints in the Sand" type thinking that really seems to confuse certain things. With this line of thought, how could ANY good human action EVER be said to NOT be the work of God?
[Digression: This is the argument of certain atheists to the idea of the Church being the "hands of God" They would say WHY BOTHER with the God language, when, by all empirical evidence, it is HUMAN ACTIVITY, not divine that is doing all the work? It would show the benefit of the BELIEF in the existence of God more than the EXISTENCE of God. See the article I put below this post.]
At any rate, if we are to look at just the aspect of reality, isn't it quite obvious that attributing ALL good things that occur to the benevolence of God is significantly misguided? Wouldn't we be more consistent in saying NOTHING AT ALL about these events? Shouldn't we be fundamentally AGNOSTIC about many of the things that happen to us? Though it could very well be possible that the vast majority of the good things that happen to us come from the direct or indirect action of God, there is absolutely no way that we could know WHICH action was of WHICH agency. It would be sensible that unless God reveals to us specifically that what has happened was of his agency that we would be WELL within our rights to either call a great many things good, responsible action on OUR part and/or good luck. This is because we seem to have a very INTUITIVE notion about personal responsibility. We seem to have a decent grasp on when things are products of human AGENCY and when things are out of the reasonable control of human beings. Given the vast majority of our experiences, it would seem that we rarely see things that could UNQUALIFIABLY be considered purely divine action. (Maybe this is why we hunger for miracles and spiritual experiences...) Most are products of human aptitude, human ignorance, or just plain ol' situations of circumstance.
But in many Christian circles we are conditioned to consider all good things as coming from God. We are conditioned to give God thanks IN all things. (not FOR all things) But, for WHAT? I assume that we are to give thanks, NOT for any aspect of the situations we face, but for the fact that he loves us in all our situations and is TRYING to work for the good in every situation as best as He can. But from my personal experience, that's not what goes on. I thanked God BECAUSE I didn't fall into calamity. I thanked God for, either by direct intervention or INDIRECT allowing, NOT letting me get hit by the other car. And I think that many OTHER people are like this too. We've all heard it....
"He's not badly hurt? Whew, THANK GOD!"
"She's not going to die? Whew, THANK GOD!"
"The Church was not hit by the tornado? Whew, THANK GOD!"
In the context of these statments, it's EASY to see what the people are thanking God for. They are NOT thanking God for merely His loving them. They implicitly thank God for what they interpreted as being God's PROVIDENTIAL CARE. But given what we are accepting about the open view of God, wasn't this a silly move? For any of these circumstances, it is very well possible that God actually had NOTHING TO DO with the good circumstances. Just because God is working for the good in every situation doesn't mean that he SUCEEEDS, as Doc and others tell us. Unfortunately, what we have done is to ASSUME that if God fails to help us in any given situation that it is a FOREGONE CONCLUSION that only evil results are possible. But of course this is wrong thinking. It could be just as possible that God really WANTED to help the person, but due to either Satanic influence or the non-interference contract, He couldn't. In those cases, either human efficacy and/or dumb luck worked enough to pull us through. It could have been DUMB LUCK that the tornado didn't hit the Church, not any providential action by God. What this entails is that, most of the time, we really don't know WHEN we should be thanking God or when we should be thanking our "LUCKY STARS" that a good situation happens.
Summing this section up,
There is no logical reason for attributing ALL good things that happen to God, from the open view perspective. Therefore, there is NO logical reason for thanking God for all good things. Good things can happen that God had NOTHING to do with. So, why do we continue doing it? More importantly, how do we know WHAT things to thank God for and what to thank OURSELVES (or Lady Luck) for?
******************************************************************
Let's examine the other side.
See, I see this as the flip side of a certain coin that we have been examining for some time now. When thinking of BAD things that happen to us, we tend to look at them in 3 ways:
Ordained means to "greater good" ends ---> Evil Free-willed Action ---> Gratuitous, chance evil
Now, what is generally said is that God is good ALL THE TIME, meaning that the vast majority of evil is to be relegated to the last two aspects (evil free-willed action and gratuituous, chance evil), though not ELIMINATING the small possibility for the 1st one.
Going along with the same type of thinking we have seen earlier, there is absolutely NO WAY of knowing which of these aspects (or what COMBINATIONS) are at work in any given situation of evil. Just like with the "blessing" aspect, it could VERY WELL be that most to ALL of the evils that occur are either direct or indirect means to "greater good" ends. But we could never really know, now could we?
Summing up,
There's no logical reason for saying that God is BY NO MEANS involved in all of the vast horrible evil that we see in the world. So, why are we so cavalier is saying so? Why do we, in incoherent fashion, seem to go by the assumption that many significant evil actions CANNOT be from God for some mysterious "greater good" that we cannot ever hope to see? How can anyone even hope to say that Zosia's death was NOT a "greater good" act? Hmmm...
******************************************************
Here's the bottom line: I see a bunch of arbitrary thinking here. When it comes to good things happening in the lives of people, everyone wants to give God ALL the glory and praise. When horrific and evil things happen in the lives of people, everyone wants to give free-willed beings and chance ALL the blame. Surely, we see that this is irrational, overly-pious, misguided thinking. On the "blessing" side, we have NO good reason to say that God actually has MUCH to do with the good things that happen to us at all. As many open view theists tell us, God's benevolence does NOT necessarily entail God's efficacy in any given situation. On the "evil" side, we have NO good reason to say that MANY evil actions, in reality do NOT come from God. As some open view theists would tell us, God does have the capacity to use evil actions for a "greater good"...so who's to say that God doesn't do this MOST of the time when he does act? Something even more interesting is the following observation. There seems to be a good correlation between God's inactivity or activity in ONE area and that in the OTHER area. For example, if we are going to say that God's providential ability is such that MOST of the good things that occur come from God, this seems to indicate that God would have the providential prowess that would necessitate saying that MANY of the evils we see could very well be ordained means to "greater good" ends. ON THE OTHER HAND, if we are going to say that God's providential ability is so relatively minor that the vast MAJORITY of evils are products of free-willed beings and chance, then it would seem logical to say that even the GOOD things that we experience are products of the same thing. What this means is that if we want to say that God is hardly EVER involved in evil actions though they abound, then let's be logical creatures and say that it would be reasonable to say that divine activity does NOT predominate for the existence of good acts either.
I hope the implications on providence and OUR RELIGIOUS TALK of providence are clear. IF we are going to accept the open view, we are going to have to change a SIGNIFICANT amount of our thinking and speaking about God's activity in the world...not to mention our PRAISES that we give to God! When I pray for something and get it, I shouldn't NECESSARILY think that God answered my prayer. It could just be luck. When a calamity in my life happens, I shouldn't NECESSARILY think that God wasn't significantly involved in it's appearance. God could be using my pain for his own "good" ends. Perhaps we should leave divine providence out of the discussion altogether? Dontcha just love complexity?
"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 3/28/2005 12:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Old Post #2
The following essay was found at Internet Infidels ( http://www.infidels.org ) Just to think about...
*********************************************
Helping God Help Us Help Ourselves
By Randy McGregor
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/mcgregor1.html
"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 Post Edited (MephEternal) : 3/28/2005 11:29:54 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/28/2005 12:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Dr. Boyd's Response
I think Meph raises a number of good points. If indeed agents have free will, and the effect of their decisions affects everything that transpires after them, then we have to say that every given situation we find ourselves in, good or bad, has to some extent been arrived at "democratically," as it were. Had any decisions in the past been different, the situation would have been different, at least slightly. (Think of the innumerable decisions throughout history that led to Meph’s near-collision. All the decisions Meph made that day, and then, less directly, every previous day: all the decisions of others who impacted Meph; all the decisions that impacted the people whose decisions impacted Meph, and so on – and similarly for the other driver – went into creating this near collision).
This is chaos theory applied to providence. The slighest alteration anywhere can bring about significant alterations elsewhere. And since we can’t begin to know all the "slightest variations," we can’t begin to understand, in any comprehensive fashion, WHY any particular event transpired the way it did.
This is, in essence, my answer to the problem of evil. This is why the world, and God’s interaction in the world, SEEM so arbitrary.
When, in typical evangelical fashion, we ignore this infinite complexity and attribute everything to God, we end up with what I call "magical thinking" (the term was actually coined by some friends of mine). It’s one aspect of "the blueprint worldview" (I take credit for coining that term ) God is credited with finding us a parking spot, raising our stock in the stock market, or delaying a plane when its too our advantage (forget the 400 other people who miss their kids marriage or soccer games), etc. Yet, when we don’t find a parking spot, and the stock market falls, and we miss the plane because it wasn’t delayed, we don’t thereby blame God. But infidels, as Meph notes, DO. And they notice the gross inconsistency here. "Magical thinking" makes Christians look silly. (Tim Foley at Mars Hill Media (we have a link to his cite on our cite) appropirately calls it "goof ball theology" .
In a world in which myriads of free decisions intersect in ways that no specific individual planned, we must give place for simple CHANCE. (This is how I’d define chance: the intersecting of causal chains that no one specifically intended).
But does this mean that everything is just a matter of luck and that we can’t thank God for "good fortune"? I don’t believe so. I think we can snf should thank God for every good fortune, for at least three reasons.
a) we didn’t have to exist to enjoy our good fortune at all: he created us;
b) given human sin, we don’t deserve anything but misfortune – in this sense its all God’s grace, and
c) God is always working for good, and though he isn’t the ONLY influential power in the world (other agents have "say-so" he is the MOST influential power in the world. Hence it may very well be that his influence was the deciding factor in your good fortune.
Finally, Meph wonders if we aren’t inconsistent in refraining from seeing God working in tragedies just like he works in positive events. I think he has a point. We know that God is at work in all people who let him to bring good out of evil. And so there’s no reason to rule out the possibility that God may at times specifically work to bring about painful events for a greater good. A problem only arises when people, following the blueprint theology, claim that this is the explanation for ALL evil.
Having said this, however, it provides no basis that I can see for NOT affirming that "God is good, all the time." All evil is the result of wills other than God. If there are events that God could prevent (and remember, given his decision to create a world of free agents, NOT all events are preventable) but which he doesn’t prevent because he sees an even greater good that come can about from allowing them – then he is still "all good."
Meph is very right in saying that, if we think this through consistently, it results in a very different view of providence, and a significantly different way of talking about events in our life, than what evangelicals are used to.
Blessings,
Doc
*************************
Meph's Counter-Response
Thanks for the comments, Doc.
So, in this schema, what can God be absolutely trusted for? As I see it only three things:
1) Loving us
2) Doing his best for us (which may come to NAUGHT)
3) Eternal life for those who come
Things God cannot be absolutely trusted for:
1) Health
2) Protection of self and family members
3) Correct guidance for one's life and future
4) Sustenance of some of his own plans
5) Provision
6) Things that interrelate with the above five
This is because either free-willed beings or circumstances can tie God's hands...or He can simply make mistakes and botch the job.
Other implications:
1) Prayer may or may NOT be efficacious. It's a hit-and-miss deal, ultimately speaking.
2) Following God's specific "plan" could cost you MEANINGLESS, gratuitous suffering, because he could be genuinely wrong in what he prescribes one to do.
3) For many intents and purposes, our lives are essentially in the same boat as people who do not believe in God. The only true distinction could be hope in eternal life. (A source of unconditional positive regard can be found elsewhere...and the other stuff seems just LIKE chance)
So we have a deity who is a source of unconditional positive regard or love who does as much as he can for us in this life(which often, to our limited senses, doesn't seem to be much)...but who promises eternal life for those who love and trust him. Does this sound about right? I'm just trying to make sure. If anyone feels this is blunt, it's only because I want to get all of the implications very clear.
"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 | | |
|
MattBrown
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 74
| Posted 3/28/2005 7:38 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Meph.
Thanks for the posts. Your original post pretty much sums up my questions. I am not quite on board with Greg Boyd's response or your counter-response. If you or someone else could elaborate that would be great.
Am I right in asserting that Boyd's 3 reasons still leave us with only the ability to be generally/generically thankful? This seems like such a large paradigm shift for me, perhaps even larger than converting to the open view itself because it is such an everyday practical change in how I see the world.
Two comments on your counter-response. First, regarding your list of things God cannot be absolutely trusted for, how would Israel under the Mosaic/Sinai Covenant relate? God seemed pretty clear (in Lev 26 and Deut 27 & 28) that there are blessings and curses directly associated with obedience/disobedience. I.e., if israel is obedient/faithful, they can be assured that God will then uphold his side of the treaty agreement to give them health, protection, provision, etc. I know the open view holds that covenants are conditional but if Israel clearly upholds their side of the bargain then they, having met the condition, should reap the benefit.
Second, is your usage of the words "mistake" and "genuinely wrong" when referencing God typical of the open view, or was it just your view, or where you using exaggeration in your bluntness? As far as I understood the open view, God would always make the best possible choice given the facts, and I am not sure that would count as a mistake.
Thanks again for the help.
Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. - Nietzsche | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/28/2005 8:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Matt: Two comments on your counter-response. First, regarding your list of things God cannot be absolutely trusted for, how would Israel under the Mosaic/Sinai Covenant relate? God seemed pretty clear (in Lev 26 and Deut 27 & 28) that there are blessings and curses directly associated with obedience/disobedience. I.e., if israel is obedient/faithful, they can be assured that God will then uphold his side of the treaty agreement to give them health, protection, provision, etc. I know the open view holds that covenants are conditional but if Israel clearly upholds their side of the bargain then they, having met the condition, should reap the benefit.
Jeff: There is a difference between simple open theism and the warfare view. One can be an open theist and believe all kinds of things different than those who hold to the warfare paradigm - like unilateral action by God against his opponents (e.g., casting out demons), unilateral action of God in salvation, etc. These questions deal with God's use of His power, not whether or not there IS free-will or absolute omniscience per se.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
MattBrown
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 74
| Posted 3/28/2005 9:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks jefscott.
I guess I am ignorant of the warfare view, other than angels/demons are real, are free, are active, and interact behind the scenes in our physical world. (I'll hopefully be able to read up on it in the coming months.)
For now I am still left with a muddled mind not being able to rationally thank God for any specifics or for that matter tell my fiancee that she can thank God for her gifted voice.
Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. - Nietzsche | | Back to Top | | |
|
D.R.
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 13
| Posted 3/28/2005 11:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok, as a Calvinist who does thank God for all things, including the bad things that occur in the world, I want a chance to defend that view from a Biblical standpoint.
Two opening things:
1. Matt said, "My Background. I have recently in the past year come into contact with the open view and have for the most part wholeheartedly adopted it. I am not well read on the subject." I do not understand how you can come to a view wholeheartedly that was not adopted by the earliest Christians and does not have a tradition of exegetical work associated with it without reading up on it more. I applaud your efforts to get immersed in a view while asking questions, but I don't think you can complete accept a view without deep research. I would suggest coming back to the center a bit more to see some of the problems in these posts. Namely what I am going to discuss below.
2. I believe you are on to something to say that if we cannot thank God for the bad because He had nothing to do with it and the openness view teaches (at least according to Greg Boyd) that some things are by chance, then it naturally follows that in order to be consistant, you cannot thank God for all good things. So that means we have to reinterpret many of the natural readings of the follow texts.
1 Cor. 1:14, "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius." How could Paul thank God for an act that seems so accidental?
1 Thess. 2:13, "For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe." How could Paul thank God not just for the word of God going out to the Thessalonians, but their acceptance of it as well, which God could not have anything to do with in LFW theology.
1 Cor. 10:30, "If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?" Here Paul says that he can eat meat sacrificed to idols with thankfulness. Who then is he giving thanks to if not God? And why God if it is he who worked to provide that food for himself?
1 Tim 2:1-2, "First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity." Paul commands us here to make thanksgivings because of kings who are in power. If He has nothing to do with kings being installed why give thanks to Him for them?
Hebrews 13:15, "Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name." Here praise and thanks are virtually the same action. Hence we can make a connection that praise and thanksgiving are mutual expressions. In many instances we see the Biblical writers tell us to praise God in tough situations. Peter particularly does this in his first letter regarding persecution.
Matthew 11:25, "At that time Jesus said, 'I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.'" Here Jesus, Himself praises God (which in this context is the same as thanking Him) for revealing wisdom to some and hiding it from others. This also speaks to God's sovereignty, which is what the next set of verses will show.
Job 1:21, "He said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, And naked I shall return there. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD." Here not only does Job attribute his fortune and his loss to the Lord, but he also praises God's name for it.
1 Samuel 2:6, "The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up." Here is just one example of the power God indeed has. I am not going to quote all of the texts that say God does kill, but I will offer one more below.
Acts 12:21-23, "On an appointed day Herod, having put on his royal apparel, took his seat on the rostrum and began delivering an address to them. 22 The people kept crying out, 'The voice of a god and not of a man!' 23 And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and died." Here the angel of the Lord struck the man. In the story of Ananias and Sapphira it seems to indicate that the Holy Spirit was the one who struck them, since the people feared and then next verse picks up with the signs the apostles did (almost equating it as one of the signs -- which we know were all done by the power of the Holy Spirit).
I mentioned these last one in regard to praise because you seem to indicate that all God does do, He ought to get praise for. If God does indeed cause death, natural disasters, and other phenomena which open-theists see as evil, then should we not praise Him.
Matt, I think you are seeing the slippery slope of Open-Theism. It is a theology that attributes to chance what should be attributed to God because they do not know where to draw the line. They have to draw it so far away from the Biblical standard because otherwise they have to admit that God does things that they consider evil, which screws up their theodicy. I will grant you that hard-determinism has some issues to deal with, but at the least it subscribes the praise to God that the Biblical authors do and that God deserves. I hope that examining some of these verses helps you to see the danger in not praising God for all things.
D.R. | | Back to Top | | |
|
MattBrown
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 74
| Posted 3/29/2005 2:46 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Hi D.R.
Thanks so much for the response and the verses.
Let me clarify a bit more my background. about 2 years ago, prior to even knowing about the open view, I did quite a bit of study into the Calvinism/Arminianism subject, i.e. the "5 points" and such. So I am at least fairly well acquainted with arguments against LFW of the garden variety. After my studies I came to reject Calvinism. It was around that time that I was introduced to the open view. And though I have not read many book on the open view, more importantly I was able read through about 90% of the Bible from Sept 04 to Feb 05 under the lense of checking out the open view. So to be honest, right now I am looking for a more consistent Arminian view. Though whether I currently stand as an orthodox open viewer remains to be seen (no oxymoron intended).
I guess from my reading, the Biblical standard seems to allow (and even demand) the open view. Boyd’s God of the Possible (which I am currently reading) provides dozens and dozens of passages where there seems to be no other plain reading of the text.
Regarding chance, let me point out that if one considers Ecclesiastes to be inspired then we have to deal with the plain reading of 9:11b that "time and chance happen to them all."
But I am in agreement with you (and Meph and Boyd) that the open view does not leave me many specifics to praise/thank God for, just the hugely important generics/general items I mentioned...again...unless someone can convince me that the open view can be taken otherwise...
Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. - Nietzsche | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/29/2005 8:49 AM (GMT -6) | | MattBrown:
Two comments on your counter-response. First, regarding your list of things God cannot be absolutely trusted for, how would Israel under the Mosaic/Sinai Covenant relate? God seemed pretty clear (in Lev 26 and Deut 27 & 28) that there are blessings and curses directly associated with obedience/disobedience. I.e., if israel is obedient/faithful, they can be assured that God will then uphold his side of the treaty agreement to give them health, protection, provision, etc. I know the open view holds that covenants are conditional but if Israel clearly upholds their side of the bargain then they, having met the condition, should reap the benefit.
We can link Israel's disobedience and unfaithfulness to CLOSING POSSIBILITIES for God to do what God wants to do with them...and OPENING POSSIBILITIES for evil forces to wreak havoc or divine judgment. This would highlight the general principle about how being faithful to God brings blessing.
We could also say that THIS particular covenant is something that God chose to exert specific activity on such that the range of "free play" of non-divine beings was extremely limited. In other words, with respect to that particular covenant and it's promises, free play was not an "acceptable risk". Such that God could bless and refuse to bless as God in light of faithfulness or unfaithfulness.
I think the first one is the better option, however...with a warfare/open view.
*********************************
MattBrown:
Second, is your usage of the words "mistake" and "genuinely wrong" when referencing God typical of the open view, or was it just your view, or where you using exaggeration in your bluntness? As far as I understood the open view, God would always make the best possible choice given the facts, and I am not sure that would count as a mistake.
I'd say "exaggeration"...though many anti-openness people would not. They would say that for God to believe something and act on it with FAILING results is for God to make a mistake.
"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 | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 5/9/2005 5:11 PM (GMT -6) | | | Mr Brown -
I've been an OVTer for the last 2 and a half years and that's one thing I always wonder about. It's something that is a mystery to me.
For one, I believe very strongly in random luck. I embrace and cherish the random. In my view, the concept for randomness frees us from having to view God as a monster. So, I am very passionate about defending the random. But, I also acknowledge that God blesses us, protects us, helps us, and guides us. I know my life is good right now because God has blessed me.
But, I have the same question as you: how do I know when he acted and when he didn't?
Here's how I think about it these days: For one, God created this world and its laws of nature and its machinery. God created me and in some capacity gave me certain gifts and proclivities. So, in some way, all the good things that happen to me, God has a hand in, to one degree or another. Now, of course, that entails that God has a hand in the bad things as well. I would never presume that God only blesses and never curses, nor would I assume that good things are from God and bad things aren't. So, when I am faced with something I'm thankful for specifically, I thank God that it occurred and I'm grateful for whatever led up to it.
For example, I'm in the police academy. When I do well on a test or a field problem, I thank God for blessing me with a mind and ingenuity. Obviously my own hard work contributed to it, but God also gave me a mindset which lets me do it. So me and God are a team in some respects, and I am thankful for his part. When someone is miraculously healed, I have no problem assuming a miracle. If they are healed nonmiraculously, I am thankful to God that I live in the era of Chemo, Penicillin, laser surgery, and good doctors. I'm thankful that God blessed others with ingenuity which they used to heal my loved one. When I narrowly avoid an accident, sometimes I just thank God for my good luck. I don't know if he influenced it or not, but when you escape calamity, aren't you just generally thankful?
So, that's my way for thanking God for all my situations. I try to reduce it back to something that I know God did. If nothing else, escaping an accident reminds me that I'm ALIVE and I'm thankful to God for my life.
Hope that helps you on your own journey.
-Phil Aldridge | | Back to Top | | |
|
D.R.
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 13
| Posted 5/10/2005 11:51 PM (GMT -6) | | | Having read these post, I see that it is true that unless you either embrace the complete sovereignty of God, you have a hard time thanking God for anything that happens and that just does not seem consistant with the scriptures I brought up in my earlier post. I just think you have to do a lot of hermeneutical and theological gymnastics to get around it. And so I think this is a very serious critique of the Openess position.
Additionally, PhilTheThrill sounds very Catholic when he talks about the cooperation of God and man. God does His part and man does his. But this seems to go against Paul's logic in passages such as Philippians 2:13-14, Romans 7:24, All of Romans 9 of course, 1 Corinthians 9:10-15, and Galatians 6:14-15. There are other passages, but I am sure you can see where I am going from there. Paul seems to rejoice in God for all thing and to turn his boasting not toward himself, but towards God. He seems to indicate that in all things he ought to be thankful for God for the circumstance, his actions, and the outcome of those circumstances. Random events don't seem to fit into Paul's view of God whatsoever and neither does man's cooperations (see Romans 9:16).
Finally, in closing, I would say:
1) If God does indeed do as Job says -- He gives and takes away; and as the Bible seems to indicate time and time again -- that He brings death and destruction, then it would be a dangerous thing to call Him a monster (for His actions in this regard).
2) TO MATTBROWN, you wrote in a previous post in response to my note on plain readings of texts the following:
"Regarding chance, let me point out that if one considers Ecclesiastes to be inspired then we have to deal with the plain reading of 9:11b that "time and chance happen to them all.""
Regarding that text, the word of chance is a bit more ambiguous than the translation indicates. It refers in other places to unfortunate events, not random events devoid of God's hand. I don't think you can build any type of chance theology off of that verse. Here the English translators don't do justice to what the author was trying to convey. Hence, my critique regarding plain reading of texts still holds up.
Soli Deo Gloria,
D.R. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 5/11/2005 11:27 AM (GMT -6) | | I've heard my very traditional Arminian (very against the Open View) pastor make this distinction:
"Paul said IN everything give thanks, not FOR everything give thanks!"
Not sure how technically accurate the statement is, but he does seem to have a point.
As far as Paul thanking God he did not personally baptize very many at Corinth, I don't see how his statement makes any sense APART from the Open View, for he's clearly expressing thanks in light of what MIGHT HAVE occurred HAD HE baptized many there--more factionalism would have occurred. Also, "I thank God such and such didn't happen," for everyone who is not a sheer determinist, is clearly a figure of speech denoting happiness or gladness.
Further, on the Open View, God certainly could have "sent Paul to baptize" (to major on it), but apparently didn't. The Open View doesn't in any way deny that God leads those who are willing to be led.
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.netPost Edited (JEE) : 5/11/2005 11:34:27 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 5/11/2005 12:56 PM (GMT -6) | | DR -
I'll take the "sounds Catholic" comment as a compliment since I have a lot of respect for the Catholic Church, despite their checkered past and my other doctrinal differences with them.
In any event, I don't really care which "non-evangelical" worldview my ideas look like because I think they make sense in the context of the Bible. I believe the Bible is meant to be read both as a collection of documents pertaining to certain people at certain times and as a complete work of literature meant for all people of all times.
I do not see how you can read the Bible from Genesis to Revelations and then tell me that man and God do not work together. Adam was barely out of the ground before God put him to work tending the Garden. God gave Noah the plans for the ark and made Noah build it. God gave Moses a task to do and the skills to do it, but ultimately made Moses do it himself, after which Moses messed up and didn't even get to see the Promised Land. God relied on Esther to play her part and she was informed that if she didn't, God would find someone else who would. God gave Samson strength but told him not to cut his hair. All through the Bible, God gives us gifts, abilities, blessings, and the like and he relies on us to play our part, to do the right thing, to honor him with our lives.
How can you read the parable of the talents and not come to the conclusion that God and man work together to do great things? The Master gave his servants money and relied on thier own ingenuity to multiply it. He punished the servant who sat and did nothing.
The Bible is pretty explicit that we have a job to do on Earth and that God is counting on us to come through for him as he does for us so many times.
You can call it Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Greek, Atheist, or Scientologist but that doesn't make the Bible any less clear about our duty to put our talents to good use. And it doesn't make me any less thankful for the gifts and abilities God has given me and the incredible luck I've had in my life. I'm thankful that God allows me a partnership in his work, I'm humbled that God would count on me for something, and I'm in awe of this outstanding world he made for us. I may be an Open Theist, but I am a damn thankful one, no gymnastics needed.
-PPost Edited (PhilTheThrill) : 5/11/2005 1:00:36 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 26 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:28 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 |
|
|