 |
| 
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/12/2001 7:45 PM (GMT -6) |   | Did any of you catch what Bush said in his speech on Dec. 11 commemorating the third month anniversay of the World Trade Center Attack? I don't recall the exact words, but it basically went...
"The mistake they (the terrorists) made was in thinking that freedom was a weakness. It is in fact our greatest strength."
Boy, does that reek with theological insight or what? I don't mean to be name-calling here, but ask the question bluntly: Is God, like the Taliban, afraid of freedom? Is he less glorious if he doesn't control everything? Does humanity glorify God more if we are predetermined to choose him (or not) than if we have the freedom to choose him or not? Or is God STRONGER and WISER if he grants humans freedom -- with all the possible problems that causes?
Even more bluntly: Does God operate like the Taliban by ENFORCING his will on others, or does he operate more like the United States which maximizes the freedom of others (within necessary and appropriate parameters)?
I submit that the Open View is gaining ground because (among other things) it taps into the same intuition Bush was tapping into. People all around the globe are becoming more and more aware that freedom is a strength -- hence the God who gives it is GREATER than the God who does not. The Taliban type thinking is on its way out.
Does the analogy fit?
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 12/13/2001 2:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc,
I think that you know better than to have even said some of this. You know how it can be taken. You are doing EXACTLY what some of the non-openness people say you are. Come on, sir. You don't want me to get down on this. 
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/13/2001 4:30 AM (GMT -6) | | I for one have never had more awe for God then I have coming to an understanding of the open view. I would have never even dreamed of the deeper concept of the omniscience and omipotence of our Lord God had I not been stimulated to do so through the open view (oh, I suppose something else could have, something within my own framework, but it hadn't happened in twenty-plus years of being a Christian).
I think it's AWESOME to behold God being able to do all WITHIN our freedom with the future yet certain in all aspects! Our freedom truely is for me God's knowledge and power better understood.
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Keith
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 10
| Posted 12/13/2001 3:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Excellent insight. Granting freedom is not weakness or less glorious. What would ya'll think about a boss who orchestrated everything?
In engineering, most "control systems" have a "dead band" where the system is free to react to the natural forces before corrective action is taken. Now I offer no proof but IMO God has a broad "dead zone" and in many dimensions. He has purposes that when threatened He can apply corrective forces. His first choice is to work through conscience and guidance through the Spirit. His second choice is subtle effects that are not obviously "revelationary" and only rarely does He apply not-so-subtle "miraculous" means to kkep His purpose on track. And I also think He is adventurous enough not to have the "track" fully defined ahead of time. Now this is pure musings but it is guided by the analogy of God as "father" and a good one at that. A good father wants to see certain character, lifestyle, meaning and purpose in his sons and daughters. But he doesn't overspecify. He may try to influence through installing values, encouragement, and even gifts, but he seldom forceably blocks a certain path when they are grown. The Taliban-styled forced behaviour won't leave a father with much satisfaction but influencing a child into freely chosen well balanced lives is a joy.
If I had to handcrank Paley's watch I would certainly get tired but watching it ran on it's own is alos a joy.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/13/2001 4:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc, maybe Meph should preach!
When you said the below, taken literally it would be that God could actually pick up a menu and choose which options he wanted to be reality. OF COURSE this is just rhetoric!
quote:
Boy, does that reek with theological insight or what? I don't mean to be name-calling here, but ask the question bluntly: Is God, like the Taliban, afraid of freedom? Is he less glorious if he doesn't control everything? Does humanity glorify God more if we are predetermined to choose him (or not) than if we have the freedom to choose him or not? Or is God STRONGER and WISER if he grants humans freedom -- with all the possible problems that causes?
.................SELECT ONE................
Do you want to control everything? (___) ...Not control everything? (___)
Do you want to predetermined humanity to choose you? ...Not...(___)
Will you grant human's freedom? (___) ...Not grant human's freedom? (___)
Review your selections. Are you sure these are correct? (___)
.................THANK YOU!................
Come on!!!
I may just be with Meph on this one.
The matter, it seems to me, is not what God could, should, might do.... but what IS! And what that matters in everything.
Pot-go'en-round-and-round
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 12/13/2001 9:42:32 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
JoeMoore
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 25
| Posted 12/14/2001 9:11 AM (GMT -6) | | [quote]
The matter, it seems to me, is not what God could, should, might do.... but what IS! And what that matters in everything.
[Joe]
But this is the difference between the 'eternal now' view and the dynamic view of openness and its offshoots.
The open view acknowledges the reality of sequence (was, is, will be). When other views acknowledge sequence at all it is qualified by the belief that God knows the end (in absolute detail) from the beginning. To that extent, God's 'will be' has an entirely different meaning than our 'will be'. And this difference of meaning goes far beyond degree--it is a complete difference of meaning.
Joe Moore
| | Back to Top | | |
|
RyanMartin
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 12/14/2001 5:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's the real question: If the God of Open Theism is so far different than the God of classic theism, why do you put up with those that hold to classic theism? If He is a God like the Taliban or bin Laden, why do you even put up with the rest of evangelical Christianity? The difference seems to be pretty distinct. Am I wrong in saying it is a different God? If so, are those holding to classic theism guilty of a form of idolatry?
Ry
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Wislawa
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 83
| Posted 12/14/2001 6:43 PM (GMT -6) | | two things: is bush really pro freedom? the fair-i-see's claimed they were never a slave to anyone. they were lying. is bush really free, or is he a slave to greed, power, image...ect? is it possible that he, and we, like the fair-i-sees, may think we are free when really we have grown to love our bondages? If America really is the brightest becon of freedom why do we want a missle defense system? America is built on stolen land and stolen prosperity. we have the economy we have because we rape the poor. maybe we would be safer if everyone had food to eat. maybe the people who need security systems are the ones who are afaid that the folks they stole from might want some of theirs back?
Second: since i just got back from outer space and noticed that the newest catagory for the big posters is "Zosima" this thread remined me of the "Grand Inquisiter" poem by Ivan in "The Brothers Karamazov." Here Ivan gives us a wonderful showdown between two 'types' of God, one who is scared of love because freedom is too scary, and the other who is willing to be burnt on the stake (as a heretic no less) for the sake of freedom. So who is God more like, the G.I., or the J.C.? which is bush more like? or clavin? or us?
the kicker is that Ivan's arguement is that humankind will ALWAYS choose the bondage of legalism over the scary freedom of love? Is he on to something here?
-Wislawa
for love is strong as death,
passion fierce as the grave.
Its flashes are flashes of fire,
a raging flame [shalhevet-Yah = the very fire of Yah(weh)].
Canticles 8:6
| | Back to Top | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 12/14/2001 6:45 PM (GMT -6) | | I wouldn't say that it's a different God though Wolterstorff seems to think that it is. The title for the book that he is going to publish in the near future is tentatively titled A Different God. If you want to read his description of what the book will be about click on this link.
http://www.ats.edu/leader/grants/luce/proposal/wolterst.htm
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth | | Back to Top | | |
|
churchmouse522
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 163
| Posted 12/14/2001 7:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Greg,
You know I love you man, but to equate those who hold to a view other than your own to the Taliban is just a tad inflamitory. I know you well enough to know you didn't mean it this way. Would you please clarify yourself?
Thanks bunches,
Mouse
"We're never gonna survive unless we get a little crazy." Seal | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/14/2001 9:05 PM (GMT -6) | | You silly silly mouse:
Sorry if I misspoke. I am simply saying that all who agree with Bush should find no problem with the idea that God is GREAT precisely because he creates a world including freedom. The idea that God is weak if others is free is an idea shared by the Taliban. If we object to the Talibans mindset, we should object to the idea that God has to meticulously control the world to be great.
night night
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 12/14/2001 9:12 PM (GMT -6) | | RY: we put up with them because Jesus calls us to love our brothers and sisters not because of what they believe about certain aspects of God, but because of what God has done for them. While I find certain aspects of classical theism hard to swallow, I still am encouraged by my reformed brothers and know that I can be equally wrong in certain areas. We are all human, saved by his grace. Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/15/2001 2:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Ryan said: Here's the real question: . . .those that hold to classic theism. . .why. . .put up with the(m). . . guilty of a form of idolatry?
POW: Ryan, that is an abstraction and a cartoon. But I guess you know that. Else you would opt out of any form of pastoral work. one can too easily line up words on paper to make a cartoon. One can then condemn anyone wo puts their name to it, or whose name we or others put to that cartoon. But since Chrsitaianity is a relationship and not a cartoon series it does not follow that our characatures--even our own--constitute out faith. Even "true" fatih, I supose, can be treated like an idol; not just one with some things warong with it.
But I like Harold's moderating comment that he knows THAT both he and his Reformed friends are not completely wrong and not completely right; and doesn't, I suppose, have to know exactly his own shortnesses to know they are there. THAT comes from useing the Holy Spirit as a mirror. and THAT is a relationship.
Otherwsie, which of the praying-grandmothers in your church would you deny communion to, "future pastor?"
PotOnWheel
(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/15/2001 2:46 AM (GMT -6) | | [bc]chance, thanks for the Wolterstorff link! The "onotological" problems in medieval theology were interesting. Meyendorff sketches them out well.
BTW - I think that he is using the phrase "a different God" in a literary way, and not to the scale of how one contrasts Budhism from Christianity, or Islam. So we coud relax a bit, some of us.
PotOnWheel
(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")
| | Back to Top | | |
|
RyanMartin
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 12/15/2001 6:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Chance: WHY do think they are not different?
Wdad: Aren't some truths important because they are intrinsically linked to the gospel; namely, the person of God?
POW: Of course I don't mean to over-simplify things . . . just to hear answers to questions. Sometimes cartoons help us see where someone really stands.
Finally, I think I know to whom Dr. Boyd would like to refer his question, which I personally have found very offensive and EXTREME! I personally believe that God Himself (through the words of Isaiah) seems to disagree with Him:
quote:
Isaiah 46:8-11
Remember this, and show yourselves men;
Recall to mind, O you transgressors.
Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,
Callinga bird of prey from the east,
The man who executes My counsel, from a far country.
Indeed I have spoken it;
I will also bring it to pass.
i have purposed it;
I will also do it.
I figured someone had to bring actual Scripture into this sooner or later.
In other words, it seems like the very nature of God is connected to His foresight here. It is what sets Him apart. It is what makes Him God. If you don't like this, or you think it sounds like the Taliban, it seems like that is simply too bad. I am trying not to be overly sarcastic here, but somebody through the first punch when he started this ridiculous thread.
Ry
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JoeMoore
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 25
| Posted 12/15/2001 4:33 PM (GMT -6) | | [quote] Isaiah 46:8-11
...I didn't quote it because I can't format it well here...
I think most people reading this passage for the first time with a fresh mind would assume that the writer has decided what He is going to do in the future. The question then is: Does He need to determine every little detail to get from point A to point B? I think not. It is only a very limited leader who has no contingency plans. Did God need to design a world where He needed to deal with contingencies? No. Did He? That's the open question.
Joe Moore
| | Back to Top | | |
|
RyanMartin
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 12/17/2001 1:58 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm sorry Joe, but I must disagree. You are forming your view of leadership on contemporary philosophy. We must ask what does the passage say? And then form our view of God. Bluntly, the answer to the "open question," from a plain reading of this passage (along with a host of others) is No.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/17/2001 7:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Its good to bring in Scripture Ryan. (It seems you're peeved at me for starting this "ridiculous" thread. Sorry. But look, it got us dialoguing .
Be at peace, and let us reason together.
Here's the Scripture you site.
[s. 46:8 Remember this and consider,
recall it to mind, you transgressors,
Is. 46:9 remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like me,
Is. 46:10 declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done, ¶ saying, “My purpose shall stand,
and I will fulfill m intention,”
Is. 46:11 calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man for my purpose from a far country. ¶ I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have planned, and I will do it.
I agree with you that God is setting himself apart from idols by declaring his foreknowledge. Yes yes absolutely unequivocally definitively and most decisively YES. The question is, does this (or any other) passage entail that the entire future is settled in God's mind?
My answer: only if suggests that the entire future is part of God's plan. But, I would argue, the passage doesn't remotely suggest this.
Note, everything God declares ahead of time in this passage is stuff HE himself is going to do. Note too, he's speaking about a plan he has to redeem his people in the near future, using a man from the east (Cyrus). He's "declaring the end [of this plan] from the beginning [of this plan] which he himself is going to bring about. He's thus affirming his sovereign power to bring this redemption about, in contrast to the idols, not an ability he has to foreknow what free agents are going to do throughout history. What he's declaring is not his foreknowledge, BUT HIS INTENTIONS. He's not saying, "I happen to know this about the future." He's rather saying, "I'm going to do this in the future."
Now, you may believe that everything that happens in history, however horrendous, is God's doing. And if so, you can, I suppose, use this passage in support of a conclusion that God therefore foreknows all of world history. (But the conclusion that God controls all of world history must come from sources other than this passage, for this passage is about a specific purpose).
If, however, you don't believe that everything that happens in world history is part of God's plan and is God's doing, then, so far as I can see, this passage can't be used to support the view that God foreknows it all anyway. The passage limits foreknowledge to God's activity, and limits God's activity to carrying out a specific plan. To draw inferences about the entire future from this passage, whether determined by God or foreknown by God, is stretching the intent of the passage way beyond its specific focus, to say the least.
Nice chatting. Again, I apologize for my ridiculousness. I'll blame it on lack of sleep.
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Cibertus
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 57
| Posted 12/18/2001 8:25 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm running with Wislawa's angle.
Bear with me while I set up a parallel.
The Taliban imposes "strict laws" of their kind of morality. Women need to be entirely veiled. They cannot mingle with the men and participate in economic social relationships with men. (This prohibits them from working for a living, making them dependant upon those who do and can) This is likely the policy implemented to curb lust and other inappropriate sexual relationships. All movie theatres were shut down due to volatile content of movies and outside influence. Western influence is not allowed because it philosophies largely promote harmful behaviors and ways of life—promiscuous sex, drugs and alcohol—gambling and affluent, frivolous entertainment. The laws are an attempt to curb such behavior if not eliminate such behavior entirely. Why? To keep people out of bondage? To keep them away from things that are addictive?
To an American the laws are absolutely binding, horribly restrictive and inhuman. But to the Taliban these laws work most of the time, They ignore what is obvious to us. The story of the woman who had no man to represent her when summoned to court, so she went herself and was severely beaten. The woman who had 3 children and couldn't provide for herself when her husband died. The many women and girls who were not able to be educated (BTW 80% of the public education in many Arabic countries involves memorization of the Koran). Other women are beaten with sticks when appearing on the street.
American imposes a "strict freedom". We enforce our freedom, sometimes with guns. A person must be allowed the freedom of speech, the freedom to own property, the freedom to go here or there, the freedom to buy this or that, the freedom to make money for themselves, to get educated. And over against the Taliban, we even have the freedom to have sex between consenting adults, to drink excessively after 21, and to imbibe on certain drugs. We can also go and see whatever movie we want but we also see whatever advertisement "they" want. And to us the laws guarding our freedom work pretty well most of the time.
Until we start asking Wislawa's questions.
Here I insert Wislawa's quote:
quote:
is bush really free, or is he a slave to greed, power, image...ect? is it possible that he, and we, like the fair-i-sees, may think we are free when really we have grown to love our bondages?
Is America really free? or are we free to choose the most popular bondages?
Maybe the Taliban would point their finger at us and say to us our laws conserving freedom don't work. Some perverted old guy who's been exercising his freedom in watching too many movies and is still a little kicked in the head from the drugs he freely partook of, sees the teenage girl who is exercising her freedom to dress as she pleases, he lusts after her according to stimulous response mechanism advertisors have so successfully planted in his head. He stalks her, and finally rapes her and leaves her for dead in an alley. People get drunk by their own free choice get into their cars and freely drive on the roads and get into accidents and kill people all the time. These are the results of freedom laws enforced. People then use their freedom to choose bondage.
The laws in each situation fail to accomplish its purposes for everyone. And the weak are victimized.
Is this a matter of picking your poison. I like my poison better than theirs because I'm accustomed to its flavor by now. Or my poison isn't poison and what you've got there—that's poison, cause what I got is from God… You know there are some things we purport that at times seems so prideful and blind sometimes.
I apologize ahead of time for having such a strong opinion on these matters. Believe me there are reasons why I am so cross-culturally sensitive. I have no animosity against Americans (at least most of the time). But I just wanted to lay these scenarios side-by-side to see if there were legitimate parallels. Simply take it as a perspective that you can mull over.
So back to the original thought: which is better?
Freedom (maximizing people's opportunity to harm themselves and others) OR Control (minimizing people's opportunity to harm themselves and others)
OR
Freedom (the bondage system used to fool people into believing they are free so they will be happy existing in their bondage because they think they are free) OR Bondage (the system that is commonly called bondage but may actually be freedom because it removes opportunity for you to put yourself in bondage)
Put like that the choice might not be such a no-brainer.
Cibertus
Anabaptists demonstrate a total lack of intelligence. There is nothing to be learned from their ideas.--John Calvin
Edited by - Cibertus on 12/19/2001 01:44:02 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
RyanMartin
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 12/21/2001 12:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Merry Christmas, everyone. I appreciate what Cibertus was saying. I gladly put myself in bondage to the greatest Liberator! What joy is there.
Dr. Boyd, thank you for your apology. I accept it.
Your response was interesting, but it seems to have some serious implications. Why do you believe that God simply steps in for a brief moment in history to demand His will? You admit that the passage allows for God's foreknowledge, but your argument is from silence. God has these events determined. Also, if God knows what He is going to do, doesn't that assume that He knows the circumstances involved with those actions? So if this passage does, in fact, allow for foreknowledge, why do you assume that He knows just what He is going to do? Couldn't it be feasibly argued that all of history is part of His purpose and plan, climaxing finally in the kingdom? Don't all events contribute to this ultimately? Why do you assume that some parts of the events on earth are part of His plan and some are not? Is it because some, like the Holocaust are evil? Yet, couldn't it be argued that the most evil event in the history of mankind was determined by God and part of His loving plan, that being the crucifixion of the incarnate God? I know I am asking lots of questions, but your response demands it. Thank you again for you apology.
Ry
"I place in subject to Divine Providence both the free-will and even the actions of a rational creature, so that nothing can be done without the will of God, not even those things which are done in opposition to it." - James Arminius | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/23/2001 3:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Ryan: Why do you believe that God simply steps in for a brief moment in history to demand His will?
Doc: The Bible describes God as sometimes unilaterally determining things according to his will. The Bible describes humans and angels as sometimes thwarting God's will. The Bible describes God as sometimes forcasting the outcome of events. At other times the Bible describes God as experiencing surprise at the outcome of events. So it seems to me to be an unwarranted conclusion that God unilaterally determines ALL events.
Ryan: You admit that the passage allows for God's foreknowledge, but your argument is from silence. God has these events determined.
Doc: No argument from silence here. I'm just stiking with the text. God says "I declare my intention... I declare the outcome of my intention." So I conclude, God foreknows the outcome of his intentions. Where's the silence?
Ryan: if God knows what He is going to do, doesn't that assume that He knows the circumstances involved with those actions? So if this passage does, in fact, allow for foreknowledge, why do you assume that He knows just what He is going to do?
Doc: Because the text stipulates that he knows what he is going to do, and I trust that he can do it.
Ryan: Couldn't it be feasibly argued that all of history is part of His purpose and plan, climaxing finally in the kingdom?
Doc: Some think so. I don't. If it were so, the Bible wouldn't talk of agents thwarting his will, of God getting frustrated and grieved, etc...
Ryan: Don't all events contribute to this ultimately?
Doc: God USES everything to further his purposes, but this doesn't mean he determines everything for his purposes.
Ryan: Why do you assume that some parts of the events on earth are part of His plan and some are not?
Doc: Because he tells us some things are part of his will, other things that happen are against his will.
Ryan: Is it because some, like the Holocaust are evil?
Doc: Yes, if you define evil as "against God's will."
Ryan: Yet, couldn't it be argued that the most evil event in the history of mankind was determined by God and part of His loving plan, that being the crucifixion of the incarnate God?
Doc: The crucifixion was part of God's will and is a great instance of God foreknowing the evil inclinations of people and spiritual agents and using them for his own purposes. But I see no grounds to universalize this to cover all events, especially events that are against God's will (e.g. child rapes).
Good questions Ryan
got to run
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
RyanMartin
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 1/3/2002 5:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc,
I appreciate your time in responding to me. You were thorough in interacting me, which somewhat surprises me since your are so busy and my questions come from the mind of a "wet-behind-the-ears" theologian. Thank
you for taking the time. Let me ask a couple more questions, if I can. I apologize for such a late reply, but I visited my family for Christmas. They are doing well. :)
The word "will" has a couple of definitions, as I understand theology. There is a sense in which "will" means that conduct which God desires all humankind to obey and follow. An example of this would be 1 Thessalonians 4:4:
quote:
This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye abstain from fornication.
Gotta love the KJV. Another kind of "will" of God, as I read Scripture, is the predetermined plan of events, intertwining His desired outcome with both those who obey and disobey His moral code. I understand Acts 2:23, among others, to illustrate this idea when it says:
quote:
[Jesus], being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain . . .
You seem to to speak of these two ideas as one and the same, when verses like these (if you would like more, please let me know) seem to demonstrate that the word "will" has more than one nuance in Scripture (at least the English word "will" does). Sometimes you make this distinction, like when you say:
quote:
The crucifixion was part of God's will and is a great instance of God foreknowing the evil inclinations of people and spiritual agents and using them for his own purposes.
Yet, at other times you blur these two ideas and say,
quote:
he tells us some things are part of his will, other things that happen are against his will.
Here the first way you use "will" corresponds with my second definition, and the second time you use "will" fits the first idea I gave (boy, is that confusing . . . I'm sorry. In fact, if this whole line of reasoning doesn't make any sense, disregard it).
Another question I have is in regards to what open theism actually holds to. Maybe I am misled, but you seem more like a good old Arminian than an open theist. I thought that open theists believed that God cannot foreknow any future events for they are contingent on moral agents' free decisions, for those events would then be determined and thus no longer free (I understand this from my reading Pinnock). Do I understand the position incorrectly? If not, how can you say things like:
quote:
The Bible describes God as sometimes unilaterally determining things according to his will.
and,
quote:
The crucifixion was part of God's will and is a great instance of God foreknowing the evil inclinations of people and spiritual agents and using them for his own purposes.
Another thing you said struck me. What is the distinction between God foreknowing something like the crucifixion, and God using the evil activities of men there, and God foreknowing other events by men? For example, if God foreknows that I am not going to love Him like I should tomorrow, what is the difference between him foreknowing the murder of Christ by sinful men? If God violating the freedom of moral agents in once case goes against the way He has decided to create the world, why would He violate this in another instance to merely accomplish His will? What then determines when God is going to determine? Why would He choose to do it at one moment and not another?
I hope these questions are coherent.
Thank you for your time.
Ry
Ry
"I place in subject to Divine Providence both the free-will and even the actions of a rational creature, so that nothing can be done without the will of God, not even those things which are done in opposition to it." - James Arminius | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:56 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 |
|
|