 |
 | 
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/6/2005 8:11 PM (GMT -6) |   | spenlake said...
I will put a jacket on what I have been saying from an illustration in "God at War." In this story we see a small girl named Zosia being brutalized and killed by the Nazis. This story is intended to make the concept that God is in charge of the world seem ludicrous because this implicates God in the evil that occurs. This evil must be outside of His control somehow through an unknown portion of the future in the OpenView. If God is not certain that the evil will occur then He is not to be held cuplable.
This "providence" thesis accepts that because God is merciful events like the one described occur. The only proper response is to trust in the mercy of a loving God that doesn't immediately judge all sinners who act sinfully. Thus, we are shown mercy and can hear and respond to the gospel. This is the eternal hope even offered to little Zosia. In this case we are not scandalized by someone claiming implication that God "willed" evil because he foreknew that it would occur and did nothing to prevent it. We know that He did not "will" evil but only delayed judging those who commit it (even though He knew it would happen). We still trust in a loving God that does not immediately judge these wicked men for their sinful actions they chose to commit. We are certain that full and complete judgment will be imposed by God when He sees fit to impose His perfect rule. Those whose sinful actions have not been covered because they have not repented and believed the message of the gospel will be eternally punished.
There is no scandal concerning God foreknowing evil in this story.
I think you are missing a crucial point repeatedly harped upon by us Open Viewers: If God foreknew with absolute CERTAINTY precisely what choices (whether good or evil) all people down through all of history DEFINITELY WOULD make subsequent to his creative action, then there can be nothing BUT scandal in His definite foreknowing what would be the INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCES of his initial creation of the world. He may have "merely" set the world in motion, but the fact remains that in the traditional idea of foreknowledge, EVERY LAST DETAIL of the then only divinely foreseen DEFINITE future was ABSOLUTELY UNAVOIDABLE BY ANYONE (except GOD, of course, Who could have refrained from creating had he wanted to).
All becomes simply cause-and-effect in the traditional "timeline of history" concept of foreknowledge, so there really is no difference whatsoever between classical foreknowledge and Calvinism--NOTHING could ever have been other than it has been. All is precisely how God himself WANTED things to be, for in creating them with perfect knowledge that they would be precisely as they are, He in fact WILLED all to be as it would be. This means Hitler was PRECISELY as God DESIRED him to be, just as Mother Theresa, Cain, Abel, Satan was, etc., ad infinitum.
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 10/6/2005 8:17:18 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/6/2005 8:27 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 10/6/2005 11:57 PM (GMT -6) | | | Wow, cool. Got a good discussion going on here. Before we throw in the towel though, I was wondering if I could bring up a couple of things. I'll post 'em in two threads to keep from confusion.
For this one, Spen, I was thinking about what you posted earlier this morning, and I'd like to bring it up if you don't mind. With hashing out a couple more details about your thesis, it brought a couple of questions in my mind. I'd like to play devil's advocate for just a bit to clarify my understanding of your thesis to see where it leads. I hope you're still interested in discussing it.
You wrote: "Injustice and evil exist ONLY because of the mercy of a loving God." The question I have is: is it only for the display of mercy or is there a greater reason for that? If it's only to display mercy, who is the display for? If it's for us, then this seems to conclude that He created us simply to show us how merciful He is. It would be equally strange if the display were just for Himself. If this exists only because of His mercy, I'd also wonder about the victim's perspective. It wouldn't seem merciful (or fair) to the ones subjected to the persecution. I see that at the end of the paragraph that contains the sentence I quoted, you wrote "the forbearance of God will actually work out for our good, our eternal good". So this shows there is a reason beyond simply mercy and forbearance. So tying this together, would you say that injustice and evil exist for our eternal good and that's why God practices forbearance? Additionally, sometimes injustice and evil are destroyed also for our eternal good (or, as I'll try to point out in the Romans thread I started as soon as I can get back to it, for the eternal good of the Church, the Bride, which is possibly even more important than just the individuals).
One other side note, you wrote that there has been a focus on the "limitations of [God's] foreknowledge." I think this is incorrect as Tom pointed out. The focus hasn't been in regards to the "limitations of God's foreknowledge, but on the nature of the future (being somewhat open vs. exhaustively settled) and the nature of God's knowledge (which is infallible and encompasses all there is that is knowable).
Anyways, there's no dispute that God practices withheld as well as direct judgment, but the question of why seems important to hash out. Are you still interested in seeing if your position still needs more refining? It may or may not, but this will help me in figuring this out. Plus if you have any feedback for the Romans thread I started, that would be great.
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 10/7/2005 12:19 AM (GMT -6) | | | The other thing I wanted to bring up was the definition of "providence". I talked with the A-meister about it to try to get a clear definition of providence, and it's basically God's management of creation. To the Calvinist, this providence is cashed out as "God's eternal decree"; everything pans out according to how God ordains it. To the Open Theist (I think), God doesn't exhaustively control everything but allows for His creatures to have free will and has some say-so about how the future pans out. To the Muslim, as Allah has decided to govern. To the Greeks, as the gods decided to govern. Etc.
As far as I understand it, postponed judgment (forbearance) as well as immediate judgment seem to fit under the whole umbrella of "providence" as well as God's providing hand, His withholding His hand, and removing His hand. It all goes under how God has decided to govern. God's Moral Government is also God's providence.
Would you all say I hammered providence out somewhat correctly?
BTW, John, I think you stated this well: "I can't agree that God's rule is not already present in a very real way and that He does in fact mete out temporal judgment when He sees fit." I think one possibility is that when evil interferes with God's ultimate goal. I don't think His ultimalte goal is just to fight against evil, but to bring out the good in spite of the presence of evil to the point of when God's goal is complete: to restore the full Bride.
BTWBTW, Tom, this is g-o-o-d too (pudding!): "You can't foreknow what's already actual. You foreknow what is not yet actual." Great distinction. Ties into what I'm understanding proginosko to mean.
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism.Post Edited (Violin for God) : 10/7/2005 12:24:39 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/7/2005 9:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Spen: Good question. Forbearance is only motivated by mercy as was the cross.
Jeff: Interesting thought, there. Romans says God's forebearance serves at least two purposes: 1) God's desire to eventually SHOW His wrath, and 2) the postponement of that wrath long enough to show mercy. But if you are right (and I suspect you are), then purpose (1) may be subordinate to purpose (2). I.e., if it weren't for (2), God might not exercise forebearance for (1), only. And this makes sense in light of the fact that God seemingly intended to have a people for Christ's glory from the beginning.
But all this is consistent with the OV, is it not? For God, by this view, is providentially working out His original intent in a different way. He had wished that all had gone well from the beginning, but He will accomplish His ultimate purpose (Rom 9:19 "...who hath resisted His purpose") by redemption, regardless.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 10/7/2005 10:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: But all this is consistent with the OV, is it not? For God, by this view, is providentially working out His original intent in a different way. He had wished that all had gone well from the beginning, but He will accomplish His ultimate purpose (Rom 9:19 "...who hath resisted His purpose" by redemption, regardless.
Spen: I maintain that God's "wishing" that all had gone well while foreknowing with certainty that it would not go well for some is also possible in this thesis. In light of the understanding that forebearance is only motivated by mercy, the certain knowledge that some would refuse this mercy in no way implies that God created people to be damned as hyper-Calvinism would claim. Thus, in regard to the problem of evil I see no need or advantage in a concept that God does not exhaustively know the future with certainty. It is my observation that seeking an answer to the problem of evil has been a significant motivation for many OVers. I admit it is not the only one, but is a major one.
In my observation the two key issues pressuring for OV have been:
- free will
- the problem of evil
I see this concept of providence/forbearance as addressing at least the problem of evil in a way that certainly does not make God the author of evil or somehow secretly wishing it.
Spen Lake
Post Edited (spenlake) : 10/8/2005 2:20:04 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/8/2005 8:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Spen: In light of the understanding that forebearance is only motivated by mercy, the certain knowledge that some would refuse this mercy in no way implies that God created people to be damned as hyper-Calvinism would claim.
Jeff: I agree. But all that means is that some things are beyond the capacity of human free will. This doesn't necessitate EDF, though.
Spen: Thus, in regard to the problem of evil I see no need or advantage in a concept that God does not exhaustively know the future with certainty.
Jeff: I agree, as long as you are adhering to EDF somewhat mystically, apart from any philosophical argument for it. Philosophically and biblically, I don't see the necessity for it.
Spen: It is my observation that seeking an answer to the problem of evil has been a significant motivation for many OVers. I admit it is not the only one, but is a major one.
In my observation the two key issues pressuring for OV have been:
- free will
- the problem of evil
Jeff: Free will exists, so it must be accounted for philosophically. EDF is not philosophically or biblically necessary, as far as I can tell. And OV explains the data sufficiently, without appealing to mystery. That's why I prefer it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/8/2005 9:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: ...then purpose (1) may be subordinate to purpose (2).
Tom: Yep. Been saying it a LONG time, a LONG LONG time. ;o)
Jeff: I'm talking about wrath being poured out IN THIS WORLD, in history. Is that what you're talking about? If so, where have you ever addressed it? Some postmillenialists don't believe the world will experience an outpouring of wrath in the eschaton. I get the idea that Doc IS a postmillenialist and nothing you have said has ever given me any indication that you disagree with postmillenialism (or agree with it, for that matter).
Tom: Some purposes for creating have to be non-negotiable. They guide the overall project and they determine what other alterable purposes may be taken up at some point in time.
Jeff: In the "logic of regret" thread, you had speculated on the possibility that God may have given up on previous creations and just destroyed them. I think, philosophically, that is a logical possibility. But the verse in Rom., and others, seem to indicate that God does, indeed, have one or more immutable purpose for this creation. I was trying to account for that fact even in the Gen passage, because of the promised seed.
Tom: I agree with Spen that OVers are limited to a certain class of theodicies and that OVers don't automatically solve the problem of evil on account of embracing the OV.
Jeff: I agree, but appealing to mystery doesn't solve anything either. From where I'm sitting, EDF looks like a mystical belief. It may be true, but I know of nothing that requires it to be true. Nor does it seem intuitive or proveable.
As far as the problem of evil is concerned, the OV works fine if we are concerned with a minimal philosophical solution. It is when we try to account for evil by some pre-conceived notion of "GOD IS LOVE" that we run into a problem. There are two ways I can think of to solve this problem. 1) Assume that God is acting in love WHEN He is forebearing (1 Cor. 13) but NOT when He is judging, or 2) Assume the verse "GOD IS LOVE" is erroneous.
I take 1) to be the best solution for now, given my limited understanding. That would mean that the phrase "GOD IS LOVE" means something like "GOD IS THE QUINTESSENTIAL EXAMPLE OF A LOVING BEING." Not that everything God does IS an act of love. Tormenting people for their iniquity is not an act of love, per se, even for God (but neither is judgement an act of maliciousness; it is an act of justice--a necessary condition for ethical rationality, and hence love). At least it's not an act of love TOWARDS the one being tormented. But even then, it may be an act of love towards Christ, as God has GIVEN all judgement to him.
I don't see why this approach is particularly problematic. It goes somewhat beyond the minimal theodicy, but falls short of that theodicy that demands that God loves all sentient beings infinitely, forever. The latter is not philosophically necessary, and I doubt that it is biblically necessary. I think it is this latter view that compels some to hold to universalism. And I can see why.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 10/8/2005 10:06:11 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/8/2005 3:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Spen: Of all the words I hate, "mystical" ranks right up there.
Jeff: What I'm saying is mystical is the idea that God can have EDF AND that there is true LFW. These seem to be contradictory unless we appeal to mystery. I wasn't trying to be offensive. I have no problem with someone believing in EDF as long as a) they aren't dogmatic (unless they show me a compelling scriptural proof) and b) they concede that there really is LFW and that the co-existence of EDF and LFW is beyond our human capacity to understand.
John: I find it most helpful to think of "God is love" as referring to His omnibenevolence. Just as it is for the good of ALL that a society execute criminal justice whenever necessary, it is perfectly benevolent (the highest good of ALL) that God some day punish evildoers. Therefore the concept of God remaining loving while judging sin presents no problem.
Jeff: Yes, I suppose that to the extent that future judgement actually deters people in this life, it does have a benevolent "result." Although, it is not so obvious that future judgement exists for the PURPOSE of deterrence, as does human government. Moreover, it is not JUDGEMENT that deters, it is the BELIEF in judgement that deters. God's judgement could be based on ill-desert, independent of any deterrence it might cause. Maybe not, though. What think ye?
Post Edited (jefscott) : 10/8/2005 5:42:04 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 10/8/2005 5:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: What I'm saying is mystical is the idea that God can have EDF AND that there is true LFW. These seem to be contradictory unless we appeal to mystery. I wasn't trying to be offensive. I have no problem with someone believing in EDF as long as a) they aren't dogmatic (unless they show me a compelling scriptural proof) and b) they concede that there really is LFW and that the co-existence of EDF and LFW is beyond our human capacity to understand.
Spen: Thank you. Your above description is how I see it. I confess, however, I am guilty of people calling me dogmatic...
When God tells someone specifically, "Depart from me, you workers of lawlessness, I never knew you," does He do this out of benevolence? I believe that justice is not necessarily benevolence and that wrath poured out upon sining sinners is not benevolence but wrath. Eternal judgment is not the same as discipline. Discipline looks forward to improvement after suffering. Judgment is final and the just retribution for our evil actions. This contrast between discipline/judgment is a parallel concept with forbearance. The outcome determines whether our suffering in this evil world was redemptive of just a precursor to an ultimate suffering without end or hope.
Spen Lake
Post Edited (spenlake) : 10/8/2005 5:46:56 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 70 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:37 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 |
|
|