quote:

---

Scripture certainly encourages the believer to find consolation in the fact that Christ suffers with us when we suffer (Rom 8:17; Phil 3:10; I Pet 4:13; Heb 2:18; 4:15-16; cf. Mt 28:20). It admonishes us to trust that God is always working to bring good out of whatever circumstance we find ourselves in, however tragic (Rom. 5:3–5; 8:28). It encourages us to be steadfast when we are persecuted for our faith and when the Lord uses trials to build our character (Heb 12:3-13). And, as was just argued, it certainly teaches that we can derive a peace that "passes understanding" from the fact that our eternal fellowship with God in his Kingdom will more than make up for the our sufferings in this present age (Rom 8:18; Phil 4:7). But I do not believe that Scripture teaches us to find consolation in trusting that everything that ever occurs has a divine reason behind it.

This belief not only goes beyond the teaching of Scripture: it fosters a mentality that is at odds with Scripture. If one holds that there is a divine reason behind all suffering, they are more likely to resign themselves to things that Scripture encourages them to revolt against.

Jesus and the New Testament authors instruct us to revolt against evil as coming from the enemies of God rather than trying to find security and consolation in the hope that God is somehow secretly behind it. Jesus never encouraged people to accept their sickness, disease or demonization as somehow fitting into his Father’s plan. He rather revealed that God’s plan was to overthrow these things. And he taught his disciples – and us – to adopt the same attitude.

We are not to trust that God is meticulously controlling these things. We are rather to trust that God is against them, that he has empowered us to work with him in battling such evils, and that God shall ultimately overthrow all his foes and rid his creation of forms of evil.

If we adopt a warfare worldview rather than a blueprint worldview, we are encouraged to trust God for everything God himself tells us to trust him for and to fight against everything God himself fights against. God’s character is not tarnished by being entwined with the evil in the world and the Church’s mission is not compromised by accepting things it ought to be revolting against.

---

Now REALLY look at what's being said here. We are not to promote any type of ideology (and THEOLOGY) that make it easier for RESIGNATION to existing life-denying paradigms! By spending to much time trying to figure out WHY something happened, we don't deal with the HOW (as in HOW to fix it) Because of this, we don't do what we KNOW to do...and do what we CAN do.

[Digression: Do you see why this thing is so apt to PRAXIS? To me, open view theism is often REACTIONARY to the idiotic fatalism that plagues certain sectors of classical theism. This worldview gives the philosophical and theological foundations for combating such apathy]



6) Your view of divine guidance would change. There is no certainty even to GOD that what he orders you to do will come to pass. Moreover there is no certainty that following God's orders won't directly lead into gratuitous evil that may not benefit God or anyone else. FURTHERMORE, there's no certainty that God will be able to get you OUT of said gratuitous evil once you have fallen in. Nice, huh?



7) Your belief in the efficacy of prayer MAY be diminished. Once one truly believes that it is a genuine possibility that God can work AS HAD AS HE CAN along with human activity...and things STILL can go awry...one may turn to view prayer as a "hit-or-miss" activity where one is merely "covering the bases" more than anything else.



8) Your EXPECTATION associated with prayer (especially the prayer of faith) may be diminished. This is like #6. Believing that God doesn't heal for certain reasons known to HIM allows denial of expectation to be more bearable...for one can say "God knows best" and mean it. It makes it an aspect of divine wisdom and our finiteness. Believing that it's possible that God CANNOT heal because of "givens" and circumstances may diminish the expectation over time. Why should I continue praying on this when I don't even know if God CAN do this? How can one NOT be "double-minded" about prayer if one truly CANNOT know if God is ABLE do it or not? Unless we are going to erase the distinctions between "cannot" and "will not", this is an important thing to think about. What if the conditions are NEVER right for Him to act? As said before, petitionary prayers could be relegated to "hail Mary" covering the bases type activities.



9) It would probably prompt you to think more about Christ's love, God's goodness and presence, and eternal security. Why? Simple. Because that's the ONLY certain things that would remain in Christian thought. And they are, arguably, the only things necessary for transformation of the human life towards life-affirming paradigms. The sheer amount of "factors" assumed by the view makes attempting to ask God for the answers or attempting to find divine meaning for an occurance a WASTE OF TIME. The thinking would mimic this thought. From the TNT part of the site: "Asking HOW, Not Why"

quote:

---

Approximately 800 psychological theories about the best way to make people whole. Most of these theories center on the question of why a person is the way they are. They attempt to explain why a person feels frustrated, depressed, angry, helpless, worthless, etc. While many people have been helped by some of these approaches, TNT practitioners do not believe that the why-question is the most effective question to ask. We believe the how-question is more effective and empowering. We attempt to help a person understand how they do feeling frustrated, depressed, angry, helpless, worthless, etc., rather than why they feel these things.

There are two problems with “why-approaches” to personal transformation. First, it is often difficult to answer the why-question definitively. Years can be spent rehearsing a person’s childhood experiences trying to figure out, “Why am I so paranoid (or depressed, etc.)”? Second, even when this question is answered definitively, the answer does not necessarily result in transformation. For example, knowing that your fear of sex is rooted in childhood sexual abuse doesn’t empower you to have a healthy sex life. Indeed, sometimes preoccupation with the why-question hinders the healing process by cultivating a “victim mentality.” The why-question may help people learn who or what to blame for their woundedness without helping them learn how to divest this person or event from the past of its power over their present.

TNT’s emphasis on the how-question rather than the why-question is one ot the reasons it is so effective. Many people who strugle with psychological disorders use a mental strategy to sustain these disorder. Applying principles from God’s Word and strategies refined over a decade of practice, TNT helps people learn how to replace their effective strategies for doing woundedness with effective strategies for doing wholeness. We cooperate with God’s unique design for the nervous system and apply truths from God’s Word to empower people to be the whole persons God intends them to be.

---

Simply put, there are TOO MANY FACTORS to look at...whereas if we focus on the "how" in the TRANSFORMATIVE aspect of the "certain" and "now", we can get to the business of change. Sound familiar to ya??



10) The big payoff as I see it: Psychological certainty! As much as some people don't want to admit it, THAT's what it comes down to. You, Don, if you hold to Doc's idea get to be completely WITHOUT DOUBT about God emotional and behavioral dispositions towards us. God's good...ALL the time! No, God was NOT behind the Holocaust. No, God was NOT behind the My Lai Massacre. No, God was NOT behind the Oklahoma City Bombing. God's GOOD! (Hopefully, I've shown that this idea doesn't really even pan out...once you think about it) You don't have to despair in any Kafkaesque nightmare (as Doc would say) The good guys DO wear white hats!

Just the same there is psychological certainty for more classical theists. God really IS in control! There is freedom, sure, but God really IS aiming this thing. There ARE no meaningless deaths, tragedies, etc...in the ultimate sense. There are no "maverick molecules" to destroy God's entire reign.

Honestly, I think both of these positions a little off...but you know how I feel about psychological certainty.


***********************************************


Well, these are just a few of the things I see. Personally, I think the bad outweigh the good for the most part, for certain reasons. But that's just me.




PS: Writerdad said:

quote:

---

Well, on the top of my head, the open view shows me that God cares enough for me to allow me to truly be part of the determinig of this world, that he truly cares for me as an individual. Therefore, I take seriously the choices I make, how I parent, where I put my money. Within other views, God has already planned our choices and, therefore, we can only do what is planned. Our choices are already predetermined and, as such, our future is as well. I find that despressing.

---

I'm just going to note that this is a fundamental confusion of saying that predestination ENTAILS that we don't determine anything in this world in any way. This is FALSE. If God were to have ordained each and every thing that occurs, it would still be the case that sentient beings make things happen and change their world. As I stated in my "conversion" the ONLY difference would ultimately be TO GOD. [The ontological distinction thing] If God TRULY didn't want us determining things, he could have made a fatalistic existence (NOT a deterministic one!), which, I assure you, would be FAR different from what certain people conceptualize.

Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/29/2001 11:46:21 AM

quote:

---

Therefore, I take seriously the choices I make, how I parent, where I put my money.

---

quote:

---

It’s been a wild ride, but I wouldn’t go back. pia

---

quote:

---

I was never a Classical Theist that I can remember. The first time I heard someone say that God was "outside of time" I thought, "that's about the stupidest thing I ever heard." [remember now, I was pretty young at the time, so not very tentative in my thinking...] I have a more sophisticated answer now, but my gut reaction is similar

---