 |
| 
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 12/11/2003 7:37 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by honorman (in reply to a question about the contradictory unreasoableness of the OV Belief)
Is it pride to want to know all you can about God's works?
No. I think God wants us to think deeply about Him. In fact, as A. W. Tozer said, our idea of God is the most important thing about us. However, as St. Bernard replied to someone who asked what the four most important Christian virtues are, his reply was, "Humility, humility, humility, and humility." As finite minds, we have to remember that we can't "figure out" God. However, Dr. Boyd writes in his explanations about Neotheism that theology is "shaped by the components of human reason and experience". This sounds like it is giving human reason the "power" to define God's truth.(http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=717)
HONORMAN SAID (in replying to the prophtetic fulfillments surrounding Jesus' birth): I hear what you are saying about "too many prophecies there" for you to buy open theism. But that doesn't mean it (Open Theism) isn't so.
Honorman, do you read what you are saying? "I know that it doesn't make sense, but that doesn't mean IT ISN'T SO."  This is the very "acceptance" you refuse to have about God's sovereignty and humanity's free will!!!!
There is great danger in relying on our reason, when it is not submitted to God's LORDship. We have an innate desire to reduce God, which was born in the Garden of Eden. As I've done indepth bible study, I continue to learn, and learn again and again, how important "immersing" myself in God's truth is to "immunize" myself from my own predilection to reduce God and Jesus Christ. When you think about it, all heresies are reductionist belief-systems.
When we can somehow "get" God, understand His mystery, we are really reinacting the sin of Eden. We are trying to understand
God apart from God. This kind of thinking can only lead to deception. We're trying to play God, in a sense to BE God.
I think we have to remember that virtually all heretical beliefs come from trying to "understand" - read "reduce" - God. Think about it: In the first centuries of Christiandom, many heresies occurred: Apollinarianism (Jesus fully God -- partially or incompletely human), Arianism (Jesus less than God -- more than human); Docetism (Jesus wholly divine -- his humanity and suffering only seemed to be real); Donatism (personal holiness of individuals validates a church office); Gnosticism (dualistic worldview, gnosis is Greek for "knowledge") and on and on.
These beliefs stemmed from human reason trying to "explain" God's truth. God wants us to use reason, but only when it is submitted to His greater, higher, superior REASON.
Psalm 139:4 "Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 12/11/2003 8:13 AM (GMT -6) | | First of all, SIM, let me say that I am glad you are here on this board. You have chosen to discuss these difficult issues with a group that is decidedly in favor of a non-determinist view of God, and I respect that. Thanks for giving us your input.
SIM said:quote:
These beliefs stemmed from human reason trying to "explain" God's truth.
So heresy is the result of using our own ability to reason to understand God’s truth? This cannot be true, SIM. Everyone, Calvinists included, uses his ability to reason in his attempt to understand God.
It is why we as Christians choose Christ instead of Mohammed or Buddha or L. Ron Hubbard. We have reasoned that the claims made by those other than Christ are less reliable that the claims made by Christ.
It is why we as Christians reject the claims of the Book of Mormon. Using our ability to reason, we distinguish between the claims of Joseph Smith and the claims of Christ, see the logical contradictions involved, and choose Christ.
The fact is, we could not distinguish between any belief system if we weren’t allowed to use our heads, right? Would you allow an atheist or a Zoroastrian or a Moslem or a Jehovah’s Witness to get away with saying that they are right because “it’s a mystery?” Of course you wouldn’t.
We could go on and on with examples, but let’s just put it this way: the articulation of any theological position that you hold, SIM, depends upon the use of reason. The very position that you have taken in posting this topic is a facet of your personal reasoning.
Frankly, you are displaying what is often frustrating about some (certainly not all) Calvinists. Although they demand that those opposing their view articulate specific and coherent reasons for doing so, they refuse to apply the same standards to themselves. When presented with an alleged inconsistency in their position, open theists are not allowed to respond with “I know it doesn’t seem to make sense, but it just does, because it’s a divine mystery.” Calvinists write entire books pointing out what they deem inconsistent and irrational about open theism. As well they should. All we ask is that this dialogue be undertaken on a level playing field. If you expect us to provide reasonable answers, you must offer to do so as well. It just isn’t fair for you to be presented with a seeming contradiction in your belief system, and then rather than address it head-on, merely sidestep it with a claim of “mystery.” That makes for a impossible dialogue, don’t you think?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/11/2003 8:18 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 12/11/2003 9:17 AM (GMT -6) | | BJS SAID: So heresy is the result of using our own ability to reason to understand God’s truth? This cannot be true, SIM. Everyone, Calvinists included, uses his ability to reason in his attempt to understand God.
It is why we as Christians choose Christ instead of Mohammed or Buddha or L. Ron Hubbard. We have reasoned that the claims made by those other than Christ are less reliable that the claims made by Christ. (emphasis mine)
BJS, You did not quote me accurately. I said that reason not submitted to the LORDship of God can produce wrong beliefs.
We all, when we became Christians, repented, or changed or mind about ourselves and God. That's the first MANDATE of right thinking. In other words we are to “think God’s thoughts after Him.” Since the Christian life is all-inclusive, the mind is included.
In the book of Acts, Paul used reason consistently to persuade his hearers of the truth of his message.(Acts 17:2-3 states that “according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned [emphasis added] with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead.”
SECOND MANDATE: Strive to Know God. To love someone we must know him or her. Jesus said, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32). Abiding in His word implies continually using the mind to search the Scriptures, the place where His truth is written.
THIRD MANDATE: Maturing.The Christian mind should continuously develop toward maturity. Romans 12:2 declares: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.”
FOURTH MANDATE: Involves proclaiming and defending the faith. HEY! What we're doing here! The maturing Christian mind will actively engage the minds of those around him.
FIFTH MANDATE: The need to study. Philippians 4:8 states: “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.”
IF WE ARE NOT CONINTUOUSLY REPENTING, STRIVING, LEARNING STUDYING, AND ENGAGING OTHER MINDS then our reasoning is not under the tutelage or LORDship of God. And we ALL, including me, must be stringent for that to happen.
SIM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 12/11/2003 9:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Actually, I have no problem with God's sovereigty. Rather, I have a problem with YOUR view of it. Try and differ between the two, k?
Sim, so discussing the issue and disagreeing with you means we lack humility? Hmmm | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 12/11/2003 9:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Once again, when we do not submit to THE CLASSICAL VIEW OF GOD, we need humility and to be in repentance. A person does not need to repent simply because said person is thinking on such things. Thinking on such things is not a sin and does not need repentance. About that level playing field, Sim...got any strikes to throw at us...
BTW, Sim, is this all you've got, telling us that we need humility and need to repent, I'd prefer you start another thread so I do not have to read it. I am well aware of my own shortcomings. I do not need someone who does not know me personally trying to point them out.
Finally, once again, Sim, rather than debating the issue, you assume you are right...assumption doesn't make for good dialogue. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 12/11/2003 10:17 AM (GMT -6) | | I believe we open theists are described well in Psalm 32:9 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/11/2003 10:21 AM (GMT -6) | | SIM: Is thinking about God prideful?
Tom: I think that NOT thinking about God is prideful.
Honorman: Is it pride to want to know all you can about God's works?
Tom: How could it be prideful to WANT to know all you CAN know about God and his works? If you CAN know it, God's given it to you TO KNOW! It would be pride to NOT want to know all we CAN know.
Of course, we don't always know our limits, what we're able to know. All we can do it keep pushing, keep striving to know and understand God, and keep flexible and open about changing when we learn more.
What's totally wrongheaded (in my mind) is to use the argument that there are things we CAN'T understand about God (which we all agree on) to defend something we claim we DO understand about God. Didn't get it? Just read it over and over again. 
Can our understanding contain all of God there is? Like, soooo obviously NOT! Can we understand what God has given us in Scripture? Unless we want to stop calling the Bible "revelation" we'll have to answer "yes."
Do I think God wants us to understand whether he's an all-determining God who unconditionally decreed every choice we ever make, who goes to hell, who goes to heaven, and all the rest of the story-line, or whether his reasons for creating the world and us in it included his NOT determining everything but instead giving away some (as Doc says) "say-so" even if that meant his purposes for any one individual might not be realized? Yes. I think God wants us to KNOW which of these is the case. I don't think THIS is part of what we cannot understand about God because he's God and we're human. What doesn't work for me at all is supporting one's belief that God is all-determining (and unconditionally so) on the basis of arguments which believing involves having to set aside reason, intuition, and experience because God is not human and we're not God. It's doubly suspicious when those who defend their views on such grounds claim only THIER views can be so defended and that the rest of us have to come up with air-tight well-reasoned logically valid syllogisms proving every argument and subargumenet we make.
It just seems to me that if we CAN know whether or not God is all-determining or not we can only KNOW it if the reasons for believing it are reasonable, logical, and existentially "fit." I can't say the the "all-determining" God is a logically "impossible model" (though those who hold to it can't bring themselves to admit the same thing about any other understanding of God--it's always the case that what they believe MUST be the only possible view; that's frustrating too).
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 12/12/2003 6:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: How could it be prideful to WANT to know all you CAN know about God and his works? If you CAN know it, God's given it to you TO KNOW! It would be pride to NOT want to know all we CAN know.
Yeah. I agree with that. That's the first command, to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind. We humans have inherited a nasty tendency to reduce God in our minds. That's the beginning of all heresies, is a reduction of God. So it seems to me that forcing God into a linear perspective (which He has to have in my judgment in the OV belief) is reducing Him. But then since I know only in part, I may find out that somehow there is a truth to that that I don't understand, maybe even OV'ers are unable to understand.
It seems to me that OV belief gives humans a power that God doesn't have. That just seems wrong to me. After all, God created us! Yeah, He gives us power to do certain things, but certainly not everything. And when you really extrapolate the "counterfactual" knowledge, and incorporate all the possibles and consequences of possibles, and consequences of consequences, until my head spins, then aren't you basically saying the same thing, that God truly is in control, if He makes sure that what He wills to happen, like Jesus being born when and where He was, and all the things leading up to that birth, (i.e., the Helenization of the civilized world centuries before Jesus, which unified the languages, and set up the routes, trading commerces, etc. that were needed in order for the gospel to be propogated to the known world) He's got to keep His hand fairly close by.
I've been doing some intense study of the minor prophets-Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha and all the events that happened. I agree that God surely gave incredible latitude to Israel for them to have been able to disobey Him, and over and over again fall into idol worship, which was icredibly evil and gruesome, BUT He was always there to correct, discipline and also to support and reward (which unfortunately happened a whole lot less than the discipline simply because the disobedience happened a whole lot less than the obedience). He gave the prophets the events that would occur. I know, you can show me verses that support OV. But I cal show verses that support God's complete knowledge (foreknowledge is a misnomer in my mind).
Anyway, Tom, you seem to, at least from past readings of posts, you seem to have a high view of God. But I worry that the OV believe system is not at all "standardized", that it encourages a low view of God. Do you know what William Craig believes (please, in layman's terms, if possible!) as far as God relating to our time?
Psalm 139:4 "Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD." | | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 12/12/2003 6:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: How could it be prideful to WANT to know all you CAN know about God and his works? If you CAN know it, God's given it to you TO KNOW! It would be pride to NOT want to know all we CAN know.
Yeah. I agree with that. That's the first command, to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind. We humans have inherited a nasty tendency to reduce God in our minds. That's the beginning of all heresies, is a reduction of God. So it seems to me that forcing God into a linear perspective (which He has to have in my judgment in the OV belief) is reducing Him. But then since I know only in part, I may find out that somehow there is a truth to that that I don't understand, maybe even OV'ers are unable to understand.
It seems to me that OV belief gives humans a power that God doesn't have. That just seems wrong to me. After all, God created us! Yeah, He gives us power to do certain things, but certainly not everything. And when you really extrapolate the "counterfactual" knowledge, and incorporate all the possibles and consequences of possibles, and consequences of consequences, until my head spins, then aren't you basically saying the same thing, that God truly is in control, if He makes sure that what He wills to happen, like Jesus being born when and where He was, and all the things leading up to that birth, (i.e., the Helenization of the civilized world centuries before Jesus, which unified the languages, and set up the routes, trading commerces, etc. that were needed in order for the gospel to be propogated to the known world) He's got to keep His hand fairly close by.
I've been doing some intense study of the minor prophets-Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha and all the events that happened. I agree that God surely gave incredible latitude to Israel for them to have been able to disobey Him, and over and over again fall into idol worship, which was icredibly evil and gruesome, BUT He was always there to correct, discipline and also to support and reward (which unfortunately happened a whole lot less than the discipline simply because the disobedience happened a whole lot less than the obedience). He gave the prophets the events that would occur. I know, you can show me verses that support OV. But I cal show verses that support God's complete knowledge (foreknowledge is a misnomer in my mind).
Anyway, Tom, you seem to, at least from past readings of posts, you seem to have a high view of God. But I worry that the OV believe system is not at all "standardized", that it encourages a low view of God. Do you know what William Craig believes (please, in layman's terms, if possible!) as far as God relating to our time?
Psalm 139:4 "Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/14/2003 3:00 AM (GMT -6) | | SIM: Yeah. I agree with that. That's the first command, to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind. We humans have inherited a nasty tendency to reduce God in our minds. That's the beginning of all heresies, is a reduction of God. So it seems to me that forcing God into a linear perspective (which He has to have in my judgment in the OV belief) is reducing Him.
Tom: How do you reason this out? I simply don’t get it. You agree that (1) we are to love God with all our minds, and then you move on to (2) we inherited a tendency to reduce God in our minds, and (3) “so it seems” that forcing God into a linear perspective reduces God. In your move from (2) to (3) there’s an unspoken assumption, namely, that to believe God is temporal and thus possesses his life and life’s experience linearly is to reduce God in our minds. I don’t agree with this assumption, so I don’t see that the OV reduces God. But (and this is important, SIM), the belief that God is temporal (not temporal AND timeless) is shared by many theists who are not open theists. Soi this isn’t an “open view” issue.
Please take me by the hand, a step and a time, and show me why believing God is temporal “reduces” God. I submit that you’re taking it to be a reduction because of some perceived advantage you believe a timeless being has over a temporal one, an advantage you think God would lack (and in lacking be less than perfect) if he were only temporal. I suggest that this assumption in based on a notion of perfection that results from doing precisely what you think open theists do, that is, reducing God to human categories. I can’t think of any other assumption in this whole debate that has less going for it than the assumption that timeless existence is a more perfect mode of existence than temporal existence. In fact, in my mind, timeless (non-linear) existence is clearly INFERIOR to temporal existence if any relationship of a personal nature is to exist at all; that is, timeless existence would end up REDUCING (forbidding in my opinion) God’s ability to move, think, speak, respond, relate personally, etc..
SIM: It seems to me that OV belief gives humans a power that God doesn't have. That just seems wrong to me.
Tom: There’s nothing inherently wrong with the belief that God gives us a power to do something God cannot do. Even you believe God has done this. Consider, humans possess the power to sin. Who gave us this power? God gave us this power. Yet God does not possess this power. Can God lie? The Scripture explicitly denies God can lie or deny himself. But yet God gave US the ability to lie. So, I’m assuming that you yourself believe God gave humans a power God doesn’t have. But I’m sure you mean something else I’d probably agree with you on (or would want to explain). Still, no OVer believes God gave us the power to do “everything.” That’s a power God cannot give. So what “power” are you thinking OVers believe God gave us that he could not possibly have given us?
SIM: And when you really extrapolate the "counterfactual" knowledge, and incorporate all the possibles and consequences of possibles, and consequences of consequences, until my head spins, then aren't you basically saying the same thing, that God truly is in control, if He makes sure that what He wills to happen, like Jesus being born when and where He was, and all the things leading up to that birth, (i.e., the Helenization of the civilized world centuries before Jesus, which unified the languages, and set up the routes, trading commerces, etc. that were needed in order for the gospel to be propogated to the known world) He's got to keep His hand fairly close by.
Tom: You are not far from the Kingdom of Heaven my son!
When we’re finished extrapolating the “might’s”, the consequences, the possible consequences of “might’s” (until everybody’s head spins!), so that God is able to orchestrate the circumstances best suited to the coming of Christ and his mission, OVers are not (I don’t think) saying the same thing as determinists when we say “God is in control.” In determinism God unconditionally determines (decrees) everything (every tiny detail) of the story-line, so that at any point in time, regarding any event however evil, one can say “God decreed this to happen.” In an exhaustively determined world, God always gets what God wants. (Of course, determinists claim God has two “wills”—one that unconditionally decrees that the holocaust occur (including all the human choices that constitute the holocaust) and the other that declares the holocaust and the choices that constitute it are ‘morally’ wrong. God wants the holocaust with one of his wills but doesn’t want it with the other will.) But in the OV, God has one will and doesn’t always get what he wants.
So right away we see that in saying “God is in control” the open theist and the determinist are using “control” in two very different ways. In the OV, “God is in control of the world” is analogous to “Kasparov is in control of the game” where I (a very below average player) am his opponent. Kasparov does not determine my every move. I may make moves that genuinely cause him to change a specific course of action he’s pursuing, or my moves may bring it about that in order for him to “win” the game he must sacrifice a particular piece. In in the end Kasparov will get what he wants. He will win the game. But at any give specific point in the game it may be true that Kasparov does not get what he wants. Another analogy might be the sort of control that a very good teacher exercises in her classroom. She doesn’t determine everything that happens in the room, and in fact some things may happen she does not at all concur with and acts to change, but over-all the classroom heads in the direction she determines. How does she get the students to cooperate with her without determining their wills? How does she end up guiding the class into learning without decreeing every tiny detail of what goes on in the class? Or how can we have assurance that Kasparov will win the game? Only determinists would ask such questions, for only they are boggled by such an “open” understanding of control in spite of the fact that human beings universally understand such control (as the analogies I just offered show) and universally understand such control to be a higher, more perfect kind of control. In fact, when it comes to personal relationships of love, I submit that human beings universally hold such control to be THE highest, most praiseworthy form of control.
Now, I know determinists won’t like what I’m about to say (they think it’s an unfair caricature; and I don’t want to unfairly characterize peoples’ beliefs), but the only meaningful analogies I can find for what determinists mean when they say “God is in control” are analogies containing robots, analogies that require impersonal and less than loving relationships to make their point regarding exhaustively meticulous “control.” And since this is the WEAKEST form of control we can conceive of where personal relationships are concerned, I find that it does to God exactly what you want to avoid doing to God, namely, it reduces God in our minds.
SIM: I've been doing some intense study of the minor prophets-Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha and all the events that happened. I agree that God surely gave incredible latitude to Israel for them to have been able to disobey Him, and over and over again fall into idol worship, which was icredibly evil and gruesome, BUT He was always there to correct, discipline and also to support and reward (which unfortunately happened a whole lot less than the discipline simply because the disobedience happened a whole lot less than the obedience).
Tom: Unless you’re claiming that what Israel does with the latitude God gives them is unconditionally decreed by God, there’s nothing here an open theist would disagree with. Amen!
SIM: [God] gave the prophets the events that would occur. I know, you can show me verses that support OV. But I cal show verses that support God's complete knowledge (foreknowledge is a misnomer in my mind).
Tom: Well, if you mean that God’s knowledge of what happens is not foreknowledge because there is no future for a timeless God, then you have the most difficult view with which to make sense of providence, freedom, and the integrity of the divine-human relationship. After trying very hard, I simply could not make any sense of these truths on the basis of simple-foreknowledge. You cannot demonstrate how timeless knowledge gives God a providential advantage in ruling the universe or achieving his goals. On this determinists and open viewers agree. Simple-foreknowledge is history! At best…at the very best…it’s nothing more than pre-recorded open theism.
SIM: I worry that the OV believe system is not at all "standardized", that it encourages a low view of God.
Tom: Not sure what “standardized” means. Do you mean to say that because open theism is so recent that it is not yet settled or certain what believing it will involve? Or that there are so many versions of the open view? Or that since open theism is compatible with several other views on which believers do disagree that it isn’t really overarching enough to last? Not sure.
But the open view is a very simple deal, I think. So very simple. I’m not sure what it would require to be any more standardized than it already is. For sure, there are different defenses of it out there (some good and some not so good), and believers who hold to the open view also disagree deeply on other issues, but what the open view itself is fundamentally is as simple and as standardized as you can get.
Whether or not it encourages a low view of God depends, I suppose, on what you’re using to measure perfection. I used Scripture, reason, and experience and ended up concluding that of all the positions a theist could conceivably embrace, theological determinism offers us the lowest view of God one could possibly hold and still remain a theist at all. Of course, determinists feel the same way about open theism!
SIM: Do you know what William Craig believes (please, in layman's terms, if possible!) as far as God relating to our time?
Tom: Yeah, Craig’s views on God’s relationship to time are very interesting, and they’re perfectly compatible with the open view, classical Arminianism, Molinsim, or ever determinism! Craig argues (in layman’s terms ) that God was timeless before creation and temporal after creation. It’s that simple. Craig argues that God willingly “gave up” a “timeless” mode of existence when he created the world. He argues that the belief that God is BOTH timeless and temporal is nonsense. Before creation God was absolutely and only timeless while after creation God was temporal and so temporally related to our temporal world. In creation, God gave up his timeless mode of existence and ‘became’ temporal. So now God is temporal, period. And he will remain eternally temporal, never to return to his a timeless mode of existence. Creation, like the incarnation, involved God in a permanent and irrevocable change. God will never again be unincarnate now that he is incarnate. Likewise, God will never again be timeless now that he has created a temporal world. No perfection of God’s was lost in becoming temporal, for both “timelessness” and “temporality” are contingent attributes of God. That is, his essential nature doesn’t demand that he be either. That’s Craig’s view.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/14/2003 8:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Tim: So, yes, thinking about God is either prideful or full of mercy; what do you think you appear to others to be full of?
Tom: I honestly don’t know Tim. I try to always check my motives and attitudes and repent of believing I need to be right (a huge temptation for all of us I think) or of thinking that God requires us to be right about every theological detail and that getting it right scores us point with God (another big temptation we all face). I hope I’m a blessing and a challenge to those I talk to on this site, and it would bother me to know that I’ve come across as prideful to anybody. If I have come across prideful, would you help me by pointing out where and when I appeared so and give me a chance perhaps to fix things?
What’s difficult is when someone assumes you’re prideful because you’re an open theist, or that for a person to believe about God what open theists believe about God means thinking proudly about God, as if one can only get to open theism and remain there by thinking proudly instead of humbly. If you think this of me then I have no way of appearing to you humble in my thoughts about God. But if there’s some particular attitude, insult, or proud remark I made, then I’d appreciate your pointing it out so I can make amends.
Thanks!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 12/15/2003 8:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks, Tom for your response. I apologize for not having the time to digest your thoughtful response completely right now, what with Xmas activities, recitals, Capstone presentations, etc. It will probably be a week before I can really respond well.
One very important thing that I was talking about to my husband the other day:
God teaches us and gives us opportunities to be molded into the image of His Son by the day-to-day events of our lives. He orchestrates situations to happen in a way that will address the very things in our lives that most need addressing. Let's take humility. I had just listened to a pastor who was preaching how God orchestrates events in peoples' lives to teach them lessons in humility. He will cause another person who is making a list of peoples' names who have done committee work to thank them for their efforts. However, this person "accidentally" leaves your name off of the list. It was an "honest" mistake on his part, not meant to cause ill feelings,and happened because of a time-limit and confusion of facts, but happened anyway. Well, this pastor says that God "orcestrated", caused this "forgetting" to happen in order to help you learn a very important attitude: humility. In fact, God orchestrates many of these types of things to happen to this one individual. Well, I began to think back to many painful things that I have gone through over the past 10 or so years, and immediately saw how those very things were the tool that God used to change me where I needed to change. I saw that these were not just painful "accidents.
But now, if I'm an Open Theist, my thinking is "well, those are just free choices that have nothing to do with God." Therefore, I end up missing the very lessons in my life that God is trying to teach me! It seems to me that an end-product of OV belief is missing the very teachings that God is trying to do because there is "no connection between the events in life having to do with "human choice" and me"!
What do you think? Does OV decrease one's belief that God teaches each one of us individually through our individual life events?
Psalm 139:4 "Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/15/2003 7:21 PM (GMT -6) | | SIM: But now, if I'm an Open Theist, my thinking is "well, those are just free choices that have nothing to do with God." Therefore, I end up missing the very lessons in my life that God is trying to teach me! It seems to me that an end-product of OV belief is missing the very teachings that God is trying to do because there is "no connection between the events in life having to do with "human choice" and me"!
What do you think? Does OV decrease one's belief that God teaches each one of us individually through our individual life events?
Tom: SIM is a girl! Now I remember from previous discussions! But when I wasn’t sure, I assumed you were a guy. Sorry. Why do guys do that? Springs…I need counseling again! Book me an online session for next week!
You’ve brought up a really good point, SIM. I can perfectly understand your objecting to the OV. If it’s true that you can only learn to respond humbly to the person who overlooked including your name on the list by believing God determined the person to overlook including your name so that you’d learn to be humble, then you’re right about the OV. OVers would almost never be able to grow through life’s experiences in the fruit of the Spirit because they deny that God determines evil. Of course, it’s not evil to overlook including someone’s name. But what about learning to forgive those who do evil against us? What about learning to forgive someone who sexually abuses your child? Did God determine that your child be sexually abused so that you’d learn to forgive?
Two quick comments. First, I think Laika is right. We certainly use situations over which WE have no control to teach our children about being patient, or loving, or forgiving. And if the circumstance involves wrongdoing I’m sure we make it a point to disassociate ourselves from the circumstance and from responsibility for it before using it to help our children respond in the right way. So we don’t require the sort of thing you’re talking about in order to teach others. I’m not sure then, why we can’t turn to God and learn from him while believing he is disassociated from evil and responsibility for it in order to allow God to teach us to respond godly to it.
Secondly, this takes us back to Rom. 8.28 (don’t have a copy here with me; how’s it worded?): “God works together in all things for the good for those who love him....” There’s some ambiguity about how it ought to be translated (“for the good of those” or “for the good, for those who”). It’s not really that important perhaps. The point is the same. In describing God bringing it about that the person compiling the names overlooked a certain person’s name (or God’s bringing it about that a small child is sexually abused, or murdered) in order for the wounded party to learn to be humble or forgiving, you would be interpreting Rom 8 this way: “God determines (works, does) all things for the good of those who love him….” And this is precisely how determinists understand this verse. But there’s a better way to understand the verse (again, don’t have me notes with me!): “God works together (“synergos” is the verb = synergy) for good with those who love him…,” or "God synergizes in all things to bring about good." The point being not that God determines all things but that God is always and everywhere working redemptively for those who love him. No evil can befall us that a) God’s not having determined it means b) God is unable to use it to perfect us IF we love and cooperate with him.
So, assuming the person in question is alone responsible for forgetting your name on the list, you can STILL pray, “Father, it hurt to be forgotten like that after all my hard work in the committee, but I want to be humble and loving like Christ. Help me be satisfied with knowing that YOU’RE aware of my hard work. Help me learn to do all that I do as unto you.” Why can’t you pray this and grow from the experience without having also to believe that God determined the person to overlook your name? Or take a clearly evil event. Your husband abandons you for another woman and divorces you. Do you have to believe God unconditionally determined that you be treated this way before the world was created so that you’d grow from the experience? Can you not pray, “Father, you make it explicitly clear in Malachi that you hate divorce, so I every reason to believe you did NOT desire or plan this for me. I know you’re present in this circumstance right now to work with me in bringing about the greatest good in response to what my husband has done, to perfect in me the image of your son who understands what I'm feeling because he too was betrayed and forsaken. Help me love like he loved!”? Doesn’t this approach make better sense of what we know God to be like based on Christ’s unequivocal opposition to evil and his dying on the cross for us? Doesn’t it make better sense of how WE use life experiences to teach our children? Does it make it impossible to work WITH God in responding to the evil that strikes our lives and the lives of those we love?
One last comment. In my mind Rom. 8.28 is very difficult to understand if I believe God is determining “all things” for good for those who love God, for this would include God’s determining whether or not people love God, whether or not they choose to respond to God in the circumstance to learn what they’re to learn. In fact, it requires us to believe that when people don’t respond lovingly and humbly to God in the midst of evil, that’s what God determined for them. When they curse God and flip him the finger because they can’t embrace the thought of God eternally determining for his own pleasure the sexual abuse of their young daughter, that too is all determined by God. Where’s the “synergy” Rom. 8.28 speaks of?
So, SIM, I wouldn’t know HOW to choose to learn to be humble and loving toward God if I also believed God, unconditionally and for his own good pleasure, determined my child’s abuse and murder.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 12/17/2003 2:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Psa 123:3 Have mercy upon us, O LORD, have mercy upon us: for we are exceedingly filled with contempt.
Pro 28:13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh [them] shall have mercy.
Psa 89:14 Justice and judgment [are] the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.
Mic 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
Tom, even if or rather when I know I have failed in the area of dealing justly with another, the truth of mercy should always be before my face, and everyone will recognize the humility of my true situation, as I walk beside each of them long enough . . .
To do and to be what I am created to do and to be, deals with justice, and mercy, balanced with or by humility . . .
God orchestrated life to function better, as such . . .
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/17/2003 2:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom, even if or rather when I know I have failed in the area of dealing justly with another, the truth of mercy should always be before my face, and everyone will recognize the humility of my true situation, as I walk beside each of them long enough . . .
To do and to be what I am created to do and to be, deals with justice, and mercy, balanced with or by humility . . .
God orchestrated life to function better, as such . . .
I have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. You've completely lost me now. Please don't try to fix it. Just leave me wondering. It's the season for wonder.
Merry Christmas!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 12/17/2003 7:06 AM (GMT -6) | | | I do not have a problem with John's aversion to it; however, it is important to note that just because a holiday started as pagan doesn't mean it is to others, nor does it mean that Christians cannot claim it for their own, nor draw closer to God because of it. Its not some conspirary by churches or any such nonsense. It is whatever each Christian decides by their conscience and in prayer with their Maker. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:35 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 |
|
|