 |
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/13/2006 11:27 AM (GMT -6) |   |
MephEternal said...Ok. Serious devil’s advocate time. Put yourself in this cognitive position… 1. God’s happiness is the CENTRAL, MOST IMPORTANT thing in a believer’s life. WHATEVER (I cannot stress this enough!!!) makes God happy should make us happy…because when God is happy, we find our greatest joy. This can ACTUALLY work out as follows. If it pleases God for me to end up in a fiery hell, I should find complete joy in that fact. Why? Because it makes God happy. And God’s happiness IS the ultimate and PRIMARY source of YOUR joy. [Note: This is the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR. This is the psychological driver that makes it possible to live this out existentially. 2. God is the Absolute, Creator, and Sustainer of all! You believe that God has the absolute right as God to do whatever God wants to do. All worth is derived specifically from Him and all things are HIS. [Note: This is the main thing that undergirds the most important factor above]3. You believe that God has ordained all things. You believe that NOTHING can thwart God’s will at any time. God doesn’t “lose”! 4. You believe that gratuitous evil does NOT EXIST. You believe that ALL occurances of evil and suffering have some meaningful purpose behind it. God NEVER hopes that things go a certain way, but gets disappointed because of a complex “mystery-in-the-tornado” world. He KNOWS what is going to happen. 5. You believe that God could have created a universal hell, if he would have liked. And that the decision to allow ANYONE to be with Him forever is an immense act of grace and love. Really. 6. You hold the Piper/Edwardian view that God ordains evil in order to demonstrate more glorious facets of Himself to Creation. Now, in my mind, if one were to totally take these ideas into the mind and live them out, I could see one virtually weeping DAILY at God’s majesty, grace and glory. Seriously. That God would create things such that absolutely EVERYTHING adds to God’s happiness. That NO action falls through the existential cracks of history. That a God who could have just as well put us on this rock and NEVER allowed any of us a chance of theosis with God...has decided to DIE for us??? What a wonderful God! But add this following thing to the mix…and the deal is sealed. 7. You believe that, since God can do whatever God wants to do…AND you believe that God wants to ultimate save all people…that universalism IS TRUE and that God ends up saving ALL PEOPLE. You are inclined to believe this because this is the LOGICAL OUTWORKING of the idea that “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.”You have a person SET UP for ecstatic living in God. What do YOU think? 
Point out for me, and explain, the place of...
#1 Sin
#2 The Cross
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/13/2006 11:54 AM (GMT -6) | | POW:
Point out for me, and explain, the place of...
#1 Sin
#2 The Cross
Especially the last one.
Briefly. I'm continuing with the perspective I've talked about above.
Let's remember that this whole thing is chiefly about God's display and enjoyment of God's own glory. The existence of sin presents a particular context in which different facets of God's goodness can be displayed. We would have no knowledge of what salvation is if no one were in need of saving. We would have no knowledge of what healing is if there were no dis-ease. Most of all, we would have no context to see God's righteousness and holiness as juxtaposed to something impure...in the form of divine judgement.
In THIS context, the Cross demonstates God's grace, righteousness, and holiness as he shows Himself to be the ULTIMATE Judge and the ULTIMATE Savior in one divine work.
In short, the whole thing is about God demonstrating aspects of Godself to Creation and to Himself and finding joy (and providing joy) in that display. God's glorification.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 3/13/2006 11:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
Well, there's your blizzard - happy?
I finished my paper and already received my grade. I got an "A" -- 2493 words! ha.
As they say "glad that's over" 
Bonjour Mephi the beloved!!! How art thou?
Thanks for popping in -- I knew you would try to help me with my existential need 
Here goes:
Meph said:
1. God’s happiness is the CENTRAL, MOST IMPORTANT thing in a believer’s life. WHATEVER (I cannot stress this enough!!!) makes God happy should make us happy…because when God is happy, we find our greatest joy. This can ACTUALLY work out as follows. If it pleases God for me to end up in a fiery hell, I should find complete joy in that fact. Why? Because it makes God happy. And God’s happiness IS the ultimate and PRIMARY source of YOUR joy.
[Note: This is the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR. This is the psychological driver that makes it possible to live this out existentially.
selah tries it on:
So far I'm thinking God is: 1)not like Jesus - and really should have re-thought the whole idea of Jesus 2)selfish and self centered 3)not to be imitated... So far, I don't like God... let alone LOVE him.
Mephi:
2. God is the Absolute, Creator, and Sustainer of all! You believe that God has the absolute right as God to do whatever God wants to do. All worth is derived specifically from Him and all things are HIS.
[Note: This is the main thing that undergirds the most important factor above]
selah:
Ok, now I'm relating to God's Power and perhaps God's wisdom. I'm Ok with this God. I'm thankful for being created and sustained and I'm glad I'm His. I'm also Ok with the fact that He's Absolute. I will relate to Him absolutely
mephi:
3. You believe that God has ordained all things. You believe that NOTHING can thwart God’s will at any time. God doesn’t “lose”!
selah:
I'm mad at God for ordaining the zosia's in the world. I am confused about sin and I think John the Baptist was kind of dumb for telling people to repent when God was the one responsible for doing sin through them...
Meph:
4. You believe that gratuitous evil does NOT EXIST. You believe that ALL occurances of evil and suffering have some meaningful purpose behind it. God NEVER hopes that things go a certain way, but gets disappointed because of a complex “mystery-in-the-tornado” world. He KNOWS what is going to happen.
selah:
I don't think this God is authentic at all. I think this God is playing some sick game with all of us. Perhaps I would obey this God, but "love" would have NO MEANING to me at all. Loving this God would be like loving a pedophile... because this God ordained every act of pedophilia in the world... What am I supposed to say: "Thanks" for this particular evil, God... can't wait to see what comes of it!!! cool evil over here, God. No Mephi, I cant do it. This God is bad...bottom line.
Meph:
5. You believe that God could have created a universal hell, if he would have liked. And that the decision to allow ANYONE to be with Him forever is an immense act of grace and love. Really.
selah:
no problem with this one.
Mephi:
6. You hold the Piper/Edwardian view that God ordains evil in order to demonstrate more glorious facets of Himself to Creation.
selah:
All I see is a self centered meany bogus picture of God. Actually, the only way I think I could picture God like this would be if >>>IF Jesus never existed. It's Jesus - His life and ministry that makes this view of God so impossible to imagine... at least for me.
Meph:
Now, in my mind, if one were to totally take these ideas into the mind and live them out, I could see one virtually weeping DAILY at God’s majesty, grace and glory. Seriously. That God would create things such that absolutely EVERYTHING adds to God’s happiness. That NO action falls through the existential cracks of history. That a God who could have just as well put us on this rock and NEVER allowed any of us a chance of theosis with God...has decided to DIE for us??? What a wonderful God!
selah:
I would want to die if this was the case. Really. I can't imagine getting happy, worshipping, or thinking a God like this would be worth living for/in/or with. My life with this narcissistic God would lack purpose, significance, authenticity... forgetaboutit.
meph:
But add this following thing to the mix…and the deal is sealed.
7. You believe that, since God can do whatever God wants to do…AND you believe that God wants to ultimate save all people…that universalism IS TRUE and that God ends up saving ALL PEOPLE. You are inclined to believe this because this is the LOGICAL OUTWORKING of the idea that “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.”
You have a person SET UP for ecstatic living in God.
What do YOU think?
selah:
I think universalism would be the most sound/happy doctrine of all at this point. Life on earth would have no meaning, so I would hope everyone would die and go to heaven.
I considered each one meph and I really tried each one on the best I could.
I'm not playin with you. I honestly DO NOT GET HOW PEOPLE DO THIS!
any other ideas?
Blessings,
selahPost Edited (selah) : 3/14/2006 7:37:53 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/13/2006 12:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah,
Nope. You didn't try it on tight enough. Let me help.
I want you to think DYSFUNCTIONALLY. (I just better go ahead and say it this way. Hate doing it.)
Think CODEPENDENCY.
1) God is the Absolute, Creator, and Sustainer of all! You believe that God has the absolute right as God to do whatever God wants to do. All worth is derived specifically from Him and all things are HIS.
You said...
"Ok, now I'm relating to God's Power and perhaps God's wisdom. I'm Ok with this God. I'm thankful for being created and sustained and I'm glad God I'm His. I'm also Ok with the fact that He's Absolute. I will relate to Him absolutely."
No. You've got to go deeper than this. You've got to get CODEPENDENT here. Seriously. You have to completely RELATIVIZE yourself...your feelings, your emotions, your thoughts...to your absolute. Your ENTIRE SELF-ESTEEM and EMOTIONAL STATEcomes from your absolute. Your absolute is the PRIMARY, if not ONLY THING that makes you...you. In fact, your happiness and joy is UTTERLY dependent upon the emotional state of the person you have absolutized. You can ONLY be as happy as the person to whom you are codependently linked is happy.
Really...REALLY...put this on, Selah!
Now...
You believe that God is ALWAYS happy and full of joy because God glories in Himself, in ALL things!
And...
God glories in YOUR existence because he created you to exist...EVERY INSTANCE IN YOUR EXISTENCE in some way brings God glory, which God enjoys.
AND...
God gets MORE glory as you find more and more satifaction in God's glory and joy.
AND...
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that ANYONE can do to diminish God's glory and joy in Himself.
Therefore, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING can ANYONE can do to diminish your satisfaction and joy in God's glory and joy in Himself.
REALLY, REALLY sink into this.
If you allow yourself to REALLY feel this, I think that you would almost get to a mystical state where you would have an almost delusional, giddy sense of joy! I could see a person who wholeheartedly believes this be one of the most JOYFUL looking people I've ever seen.
You've GOT to take off the current glasses you have on as much as possible, Selah...so that you can do this.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/13/2006 12:33 PM (GMT -6) | | This is really not that hard once you think about it.
If a person makes the happiness and joy of Piper's God their PRIMARY source of joy and satisfaction, by whatever existential means, there could NEVER be any occurance that would diminish that person's sense of satifaction. They source of joy would NOT be located in their life experiences...but in their solid BELIEF about God's eternal happiness in God's own glory.
Yes, this could resemble psychosis. Or some mystical state. Whatever you'd want to call it.
You could effectively have someone getting tortured, beaten, and raped...all the while having an intense sense of "joy" because of their belief that God's will was being done and God was receiving glory from it.
Do not underestimate the human mind, yo.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/13/2006 12:40 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
. . .
In THIS context, the Cross demonstates God's grace, righteousness, and holiness as he shows Himself to be the ULTIMATE Judge and the ULTIMATE Savior in one divine work.
In short, the whole thing is about God demonstrating aspects of Godself to Creation and to Himself and finding joy (and providing joy) in that display. God's glorification.
There are those who say that sin was God's will...so that he could demonstrate his glory.
Dostoevsky's "Ivan" is NOT a taker; and neither an I!
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/13/2006 12:43 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
You could effectively have someone getting tortured, beaten, and raped...all the while having an intense sense of "joy" because of their belief that God's will was being done and God was receiving glory from it. Such resembles or represents several religions. But NONE of them are Christianity.
The rampant trodding of evil, and God's radical opposition to it -- finally triumphing in the Cross -- is witness against this.
=====================
What that represents is a kind of "zero-sum" game where everything is balanced out at the end. But Ivan sticks with his guns and says its an outrage. And Hart says that is MORE a Christian view than many supposed expressions of theodocies professed by many Christians.
Sloppy as God really is, the "remainders" -- the un-balanced sh*t -- is addressed by the Cross and the Resurrection. . . breaking in, and not balancing.
I'm with Ivan.
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 3/13/2006 11:50:48 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/13/2006 12:47 PM (GMT -6) | | POW:
The rampant trodding of evil, and God's radical opposition to it -- finally triumphing in the Cross -- is witness against this.
Hmmm...that is YOUR theological perspective, POW. And you are most welcome to it.
There are others who think otherwise. Some people think that the cosmic drama, including the Cross, demonstrates God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness...but in no way necessitates the existence of LFW.
So...to each their own.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/13/2006 12:54 PM (GMT -6) | | POW:
What that represents is a kind of "zero-sum" game where everything is balanced out at the end. But Ivan sticks with his guns and says its an outrage. And Hart says that is MORE a Christian view than many supposed expressions of theodocies professed by many Christians.
Sloppy as God really is, the "remainders" -- the un-balanced sh*t -- is addressed by the Cross and the Resurrection. . . breaking in, and not balancing.
I'm with Ivan.
Ivan isn't enough of a utilitarian...like God is. Even the God of the open view/warfare worldview. What do we think that whole idea of "greater good" or "sacrificing the rook for the queen" actually IS???
I wonder how Ivan would have felt about talking about "Zosia" being a rook sacrificed for some unknown (and unknowable) "queen" somewhere else in existence?
Hmmm...
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/13/2006 1:08 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Ivan isn't enough of a utilitarian...like God is. Even the God of the open view/warfare worldview. What do we think that whole idea of "greater good" or "sacrificing the rook for the queen" actually IS???
I wonder how Ivan would have felt about talking about "Zosia" being a rook sacrificed for some unknown (and unknowable) "queen" somewhere else in existence?
Hmmm...
D, without a tone-of-voice I don't know which of two opposites you intend for me to understand.
IF you are, yourself, embracing (and not just puppeting for demonstration purposes) the "greater good" model, THEN I strongly disagree with you.
That's not Biblical.
Hart: " Voltaire sees only the terible truth that the history of suffering and death is not morally intelligible. Dostoyevsky sees -- and this bespeaks both his moral genius and his irreducibly Chrisitian view of reality -- that it would be far more terrible if it were."
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 3/13/2006 2:51:02 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/13/2006 3:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Wow, you guys are cruisin. My classes just got cancelled 'cause of snow, so I gotta hit the road.
Check it out. I'll agree with Mephi that people really can existentially do determinism. But like he said, it involves a skewed understanding of personal loving relationality (at least for humans, as we are). Mephi calls it codepdency. That's cool. Codependents get SOME existential satisfaction, SOME gratification of their felt needs, from this skewed perspective. But of course I agree with Sista Sela too. From where I am NOW, knowing what I know NOW, I couldn't possibly 'DO' that sort of relationship with God. I couldn't get ANY existential satisfaction from it.
Ya'll, Mephi's point is not that people are best left to their codependency, or that God could care less so long as people are existentially 'DOING' faith and providence in a way that works 'for them', or that a determinist's existentialism is in fact true and right. I would hope he'd agree it isn't. His point is just that we ought not seek to argue in favor of an indeterminist's way of 'DOING' faith and trust on the basis that people can only actually trust God from within an indeterminist's worldview. That's not true. Obviously John Piper trusts God. To boot, he believes in and trust God as he believes God to be. We have to debate the pro's and con's of our respective views of human relations, love, and autonomy as a separate thing. And apart from a determinist being very motivated by some event or issue that's reconnected him with what I believe and deeper human intuitions and hardwiring (about love, freedom, and relationality), there's no a whole lot we can do but present our different viewpoints. At best the determinist and indeterminist can each argue for the existential fit of their respective view based on their respective beliefs about love, personhood, relations, and moral responsibility.
Now, I personally don't know how to explain to myself how the determinist is able to do it without viewing his worldview in terms Mephi has described (as a kind of unhealthy codependence). That makes sense for me of how the determinist is abile to trust and rejoice from within his own worldview. I think we still ought to challenge determinists on existential grounds, though. Ask them to flesh it out, defend it, and make sense of it (as they do us). In doing so, perhaps they'll see the holes and gaps in their worldview. Perhaps not.
So--I can agree that determinists DO in fact love and trust God. I just point out that they are only able to do so because of the assumptions and beliefs they hold to about love, relationality, moral responsibility, etc. That's the point. The truth of the open view doesn't require us to insist that determinits must in fact feel empty, disconnected, robottish, etc. They obviously don't. But that's because they don't share the beliefs (about love, relationality, responsibility & freedom, etc.) which for us makes their view so untenable and makes so much sense of human intuition. The last point is key. The codependency Mephi talks about has to amount to a silencing of human intuition. And what a powerful sytem of beliefs it must be that is able to silence the voice of the human heart for an entire lifetime. Hmmm?
Tom
Did I please everybody? That's my desire as a codependent member of this board.
Post Edited (TGB) : 3/13/2006 2:54:59 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/13/2006 4:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
My objection to Piper (and believe me, I know the view from the inside) is more a pastoral one than an existential one (though they're related.) I object to people getting trampled. I quite sincerely believe Piper doesn't value people in the way that Greg does, and this is a direct outworking of their theologies. We're told to test 'em by their fruit. Which one better resembles Jesus? It's pretty clear to me.
I'm not saying Piper isn't sincere, or that his theological system isn't internally consistent or that it is existentially unwearable. All I am saying is that Jesus valued people higher than Piper does.
If Piper doesn't value people pastorally, it cannot be because of the full ramifications of the theological system he holds. Because if Piper really wanted to do everything he could to maximize God's glory, then he would do everything in his power to influence as many people as possible to find their ultimate satisfaction and enjoyment in God. This includes enjoyment of how God has revealed himself in Jesus. (This looks a lot like SK's view of loving other people being helping other people to love God more, yes?) This would explicitly mean dealing with the Great Commandment(s), demonstrating Christlikeness, and manifesting the fruit of the Spirit, from this perspective. The consistency of his theological framework should make him MOST outwardly focused.
So, from my perspective, if Piper isn't pastoral, it's HIS problem, not necessarily his theology.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/13/2006 4:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Ya'll, Mephi's point is not that people are best left to their codependency, or that God could care less so long as people are existentially 'DOING' faith and providence in a way that works 'for them', or that a determinist's existentialism is in fact true and right. I would hope he'd agree it isn't. His point is just that we ought not seek to argue in favor of an indeterminist's way of 'DOING' faith and trust on the basis that people can only actually trust God from within an indeterminist's worldview. That's not true. Obviously John Piper trusts God. To boot, he believes in and trust God as he believes God to be. Now, I personally don't know how to explain to myself how he's able to do it without viewing his worldview in terms Mephi has described (as a kind of unhealthy codependence). That makes sense for me of how the determinist is abile to trust and rejoice from within his own worldview. I think we still ought to challenge determinists on existential grounds, though. Ask them to flesh it out, defend it, and make sense of it. In doing so, perhaps they'll see the holes and gaps in their worldview. Perhaps not.
YES. Very well put, Tom.
1) I would venture to say that this is why some Calvinists would get totally TICKED when OVTers would make any kind of caricatures of theological determinism where ALL aspects of personal relationality (either experienced or conceptual) are removed. It is effectively like saying that Calvinists, by their own theological framework, can NOT have a loving, trusting relationship with God...which is NOT true. It's about time that OVTers understand this when they are critiquing theological determinism.
2) One thing that would help things would be to for OVT to affirm a major truth that the Calvinist holds. It really should be the case that God is the most glorified in us when we are the most satisfied in God! Our joy should be solidly grounded in God. Isn't this what we are talking about getting our main source of life and identity from God...and NOWHERE else? Sure. Where OVT differs is in saying is that, contra any codependent concept of God/sentient creature relationships, loving relationality and moral responsiblity deal inextricably with INTERDEPENDENCY. Where there are two DISTINCT (non-enmeshed) beings who have self-concepts reasonably autonomous from each other...who relate to each other in freedom and synergy. Interdependency is impossible without some type of INDEPENDENCE possessed by each person in the relationship.
In other words, some OVTers believe that God gave us the ontological ground of existential freedom such that forms of self-love and self-centeredness are not only healthy, but ENCOURAGED. We are a source of our own self-esteem...and for good reason. We are created in the Image of God. The problem comes in when we do NOT relate these "selves" properly to our Creator. We are centers who are grounded in THE Center. We realize that our self-esteem and self-understanding is FULFILLED when we freely relate interdependently with our Creator in healthy dependence, trust and love. In giving ourselves fully to God, we truly gain ourselves. This is completely different from basing one's entire self-worth, self-concept, and self-esteem upon God's enjoyment of Godself alone to the utter relativization of oneself...which ironically they do get something out of, albeit dysfunctionally!  Post Edited (MephEternal) : 3/13/2006 3:44:03 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 3/13/2006 4:54 PM (GMT -6) | | | Meph: If Piper doesn't value people pastorally, it cannot be because of the full ramifications of the theological system he holds. Because if Piper really wanted to do everything he could to maximize God's glory, then he would do everything in his power to influence as many people as possible to find their ultimate satisfaction and enjoyment in God.
Corey: Yes, it can and does. God's glory is maximized by limited atonement. God is most glorified to have a few take ultimate delight in him, while the rest are predestined to eternal conscious torment. It follows necessarily that God values most people as expendable (or more accurately, infinitely torturable.) "Worm theology" is not just a matter of coincidence for many Calvinists. That IS how they view the worth of people.
"You are too skilled in the art of talking in generalities about everything without letting yourself be personally involved." SK in Either/Or.Post Edited (Corey) : 3/13/2006 4:00:56 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/13/2006 5:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph: If Piper doesn't value people pastorally, it cannot be because of the full ramifications of the theological system he holds. Because if Piper really wanted to do everything he could to maximize God's glory, then he would do everything in his power to influence as many people as possible to find their ultimate satisfaction and enjoyment in God.
Corey: Yes, it can and does. God's glory is maximized by limited atonement. God is most glorified to have a few take ultimate delight in him, while the rest are predestined to eternal conscious torment. God values most people as expendable. "Worm theology" is not just a matter of coincidence for many Calvinists. That IS how they view the worth of people.
Let's even take limited atonement as being true. Let's also take post-mortem evangelism to NOT be an option. Just to make things interesting.
Because, when we are honest with ourselves, no one knows who the elect actually ARE, so there would be no practical way of distributing "worth" to people on this basis. Remember, just because a person's been a Christian for 20 years doesn't mean that they will be one a year from now. And just because a person has been a hardened Muslim for 30 years doesn't mean that they won't encounter Christ in some way before death. For any person to say that any living person is elect or not elect just based upon their then current behavior or belief would be presumptuous, to say the least. How could they devalue by their actions most people as being "expendable"? Especially when we are commanded by the Lord to be holy, love our neighbor, AND love our enemies???
If I were the pastor of a Reformed church...and ANYONE operated in a "devaluing", unloving manner to ANY OTHER person, regardless of the religious affiliation or belief status, because of their understanding of Limited Atonement...I would have them reread the Great Commandments, 1 John, and then have them look more carefully into the doctrine of the Perserverence of the Saints. I'd tell them that they'd better prayerfully check themselves...seriously.
PS: Thanks for the kudos, POW.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 3/13/2006 5:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Man, I KNEW you'd respond along those lines! I had written out a paragraph to address this, but decided not to include it in order to keep it more focused. But hey, let's go.
You're right, we can't know who the sheep and the goats are, nor should we attempt to. But this is irrelevant to the discussion of worth or value, for neither are saved or damned because of their worth to God. It's all a matter of God's sovereign choice, the mystery of his will. As for our worth, we're all just clay. If God should decide to fashion something noble or something ignoble, that's his perogative. If he wants to burn most of it for incense, it's not as if he's losing something valuable.
I'm not asserting that all Calvinists are "unloving" (that would be an undue caricature), I'm saying that they see the worth of people as not much more than we would value a spider dangling over a fire. And this valuation has pastoral implications.
"You are too skilled in the art of talking in generalities about everything without letting yourself be personally involved." SK in Either/Or.Post Edited (Corey) : 3/13/2006 5:05:21 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/13/2006 6:12 PM (GMT -6) | |
Corey said...
I'm saying that they (Calvinists) see the worth of people as not much more than we would value a spider dangling over a fire. And this valuation has pastoral implications.
I've been in Reformed churches since 1982.
Neal Plantinga, pres. of Calvin, wrote a nice commentary on the Canons of Dort. They are prettty much pastorially aimed. Lots of fanaticals at the time. For one of the points the thrust of the Canon's author is this: Don't dispair, don't presume, don't judge. Wise advice. And THAT is part of the Continental Calvinist's three standards.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/13/2006 6:53 PM (GMT -6) | |
Corey said...
our worth to God
I go to a Reformed church. But I'm NOT a Calvinist. Not even one tulip leaf worth.
Here's a discussion on our worth to God, with Florevsky critiquing Nygren's delapidation of Luther.
Read the section called "THE INADEQUACY OF THE CRITIQUE BY ANDERS NYGREN"
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/13/2006 7:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey: Calvinists APPRAISE humans' value very low.
Tom: Assumming our measurement, yeah. But I'm just thinking that given their belief system, each person's value is relative to her predetermined function within the larger scheme of things. And since each person's role ultimately contributes to maximizing God's glory, our value is found in THAT function. Since the glory served by all our particular roles is infinitely valuable, I suppose a determinist who takes this view might say we are infinitely valuable to God--in a round about sort of way! So for somebody like Hitler whom God determined to do all that he did, his value is a function he plays as the necessary backdrop to a particular way God intends to reveal his glory (say, as judge of the very wicked). So Hitler might have a great deal of 'value' to God, but in a utilitarian sense as determined by particular assumptions about glory and what's required of getting that glory recognized in as many ways as pleases God to have it recognized.
We NAME the center the same thing (God, his glory, his value pre-eminent throughout creation), but we DEFINE the terms very differently, which I guess means we really DO have different CENTERS. And different centers means different worldviews. Crazy.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 3/13/2006 6:11:58 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/13/2006 7:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom beat me to it. EXACTLY.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/13/2006 7:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
We NAME the center the same thing (God, his glory, his value pre-eminent throughout creation), but we DEFINE the terms very differently, which I guess means we really DO have different CENTERS. And different centers means different worldviews.
What do you think causes this difference?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/13/2006 7:27 PM (GMT -6) | | And let's not forget. The open theism warfare worldview has a SIGNIFICANT amount of utilitarianism in it. The whole "greater good", "acceptable risk" and "sacrifice of the rook for the queen" ideas. (Right, Tom?) The main difference is that, with OVT, God's desire for a interdependence-conducive universe with LFW circumscribes the utilitarianism...whereas this isn't the case for classical theism.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
| 54 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:34 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 |
|
|