Not gonna let it slide this time:

Post Edited (TGB) : 6/6/2006 12:52:53 PM (GMT-5)

Its the, "your arguement is totally illigit because you adopted it for "x" reason, therefore it is false", arguement.

A: my reasons for accepting open theism, supposing I do, has no bearing on its trueness or falseness

B: No one I'm aware of accepts Open Theism because its "new". In fact, many argue its much closer to beliefs originally held by the early chruch, claiming Calvinism is actually the new belief.

C: Calvinism and Arminianism are the REASONS we have so many problems explaining the presence of evil. Both alledge God specified, allowed, aided, built up, defined, designed, planned and created all forms of evil and resulting crimes.

D: I have my problems with Open Theism, as I stated in this very thread, and am really only defending it in the areas where it is similar to my beliefs.

E: That Open Theism is an old theology, does not take away credibility, rather it lends more.

Tork: Its the, "your arguement is totally illigit because you adopted it for "x" reason, therefore it is false", arguement.

Tom: I’m not following you Tork. Help me out. I’ve only just entered this conversation, and not in response to anything specific you have argued. I was only responding to the general belief among open theists (and some others) that the open view offers a fundamentally different theodicy than the standard Free Will Defense. My point is that open theism doesn’t offer anything significantly new to the mix of established theodicies. It’s simply a version of the Free Will Defense. Open theists can and do in fact differ widely on how they explain evil and providence. In fact, an open theist could in principle agree with Jason that God’s ultimate purpose for creation was not loving relationship. An open theist could object just as Jason does to God’s seeming inactivity in preventing human sin in the first place. These questions really can be answered differently by open theists. That’s my point. So when Jason rails against the open view because of these issues, I say Jason doesn’t understand the open view. And if the open theist he’s debating thinks there is some single open view take on evil and providence, then I’d tell that person he/she doesn’t understand the open view either.

We need desperately know what issues are specifically entailed in an open view of the future and what issues are not. And again I say: there is no one open theistic view on providence and evil. In truth, most of what this thread is debating isn’t germane to the open view. It’s just a debate about providence that open theists themselves could take opposing views on.

So on you’re points A through E, I don’t see the point really.. On your A I’d reply, OK, so what? On your B, I’d reply that I never claimed people accepted the open view because it was “new.” It is not essentially new. I claimed that many people ran into open theism thinking it was offering a unique theodicy. It doesn’t. On your C, I’d disagree that Arminianism attributes to God the sort of involvement in evil that you describe. But never mind. That's not important. Arminians and open theists both essentially stand within the same general theodicy—the Free Will theodicy. On your D, that’s great. On your E, I haven’t argued open theism is true or false, new or old. I’ve only argued that it doesn’t add anything significant to the standard Free Will Defense.

To sum it up, if this thead is a discussion about evil and providence, great. Let's debate that. But if it's a debate about the open view, then let's debate that. But get clear on the differences and the relationship between the two. It's a mistake to debate the open view as if it were a unique theodicy. It's not.

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 6/6/2006 4:46:24 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (jasonlevene) : 6/6/2006 8:19:02 PM (GMT-5)

This is rediculous. God did everything but change the commandment to, "go ahead and eat the fruit, just don't impale yourself on the branches of the tree!". Course truth is, it sounds like the only thing that would have satisfied you, would have been taking the tree out of the garden. Adam chose wrong, therefore the availability of the choice was evil, right?

It's called accountability. God made Adam and Eve responsible for their own actions, and you continue to sound like what you're really trying to do is tell us why no one is at fault for his own actions. The purpose of both Open Thiesm and my active God theology is to present a view that matches with common sense, scripture and logic (that's more my goal really, but I'm sure some motivation is based on that for OV as well).

We humans know, for a fact that we are responsible for our own actions, whether or not we want to admit it, there's really no point in even debating if we're not. If I'm not responsible for my chioces, I'm not the one you should be talking to if you want me to change. The only way to exert influence over me is to speak to the one controlling me. Course under your view the guy controlling me is controlling you to so even that is somewhat of a paradox.

How about parting the four rivers in Eden as he parted the Red Sea...I'm sure that would've gotten Adam and Eve's attention,

For the sake of redirecting this discussion to more fruitful ends, let it be said that open theists can differ on the sorts of questions that concern Jason and that there is no one open view position on why on the one hand God didn’t kick the furniture over in the garden to convince Adam and Eve not to choose sinfully and why he did kick the furniture over in Egypt to convince Pharaoh to let Israel go. Nothing about an open future per se is at stake in this. An open theist can take the position that God’s ultimate purpose for creation was a ‘love’, or loving divine-human relations—period—and that the whole question of sin (and having to redeem creation) was purely an obstacle to God’s purposes. But an open theist could tweak this a bit (as some open theists in fact do) and say God’s ultimate purpose was not ‘love’ simpliciter, but ‘redeemed love’, so that sin and redemption are clearly figured into God’s purposes. These are theodicy question at their core and have nothing to do with determining or making sense of God’s ever facing an open future. Some open theists buy into Greg’s Warfare Worldview completely, others don’t. Some open theists think God does all God can, given his purposes for creating, to minimize evil and maximize good in the universe. Some open theists don’t think God does so. None of this establishes or challenges the open view as a cosmology.

Jason, why God didn’t kick the furniture over in the garden (as he did in Egypt) to convince, even constrain, human choice is an interesting question. In the end, it gets answered (in my mind) by larger concerns. I don’t share your frustration over this issue, but I can appreciate your feelings. In my mind, God’s not intervening to constrain Eve’s compliance the way he did Pharaoh’s lies within the borders of God acting consistently with respect to his ultimate purposes for creation, which I take to be loving, kind, and good purposes. Not sending an earthquake or a tsunami to move Eve away from the tree WAS the best thing to do in THAT circumstance. I really can conceive of God’s not constraining Eve in this way to be in the best interest of creation. But if God intervened on other occasions, as in Egypt, to get the outcome he wanted, then I can conceive of such intervention falling within the same borders of God’s acting to fulfill—in THAT context—his purposes for creating. God acts differently in different circumstances and times, but always in the wisest and most loving manner in light of his purposes for creating at all. Some of your frustration I think comes from your mistaken assumption that all that God does on one occasion (say, Egypt) God may do on any occasion an be equally as consistent in the fulfillment of his purposes. This isn't so. 

Because God intervenes in demonstrably miraculous ways on some occasions and not on others does not in itself establish much except that God has chosen to create a world context and factors that are consistent with his sometimes intervening and sometimes not. If you can’t always do the math so that you come out satisfied, welcome to planet earth buddy. Everybody’s in that boat (from the Calvinist end of the spectrum to the Process end). There IS NO satisfactory theodicy. There are only relatively better and worse theodicies. Then there’s the cross, and then learning to trust. And we can never be in the position of knowing all there is to know about the factors that define this context (say, Eden) as opposed to that context (say, Egypt) and how God’s purposes are best pursued in each. Given the Cross, we have every reason to trust that in every situation that kind of love was at work pursuing the highest good in the universe. If that’s not enough for you, then plan on being a very frustrated believer.

Lastly, and again, open theists don’t have to agree in every detail where these questions are concerned. So, Jason, what do you want to debate? The open view as a cosmology, or providence and evil?

Tom

Post Edited (JEE) : 6/7/2006 12:44:02 PM (GMT-5)

Jason-

I don’t mind discussing anything you want, but I find it really difficult to say we’re debating some issue and then end up debating a different issue. Most of what you concerned about (providence and evil) is not germane to the truthfulness or falsity of the open view. So tell me again, what do wish to discuss, the open view or providence and evil. Make up your mind and let me know.

Now, some open theist told you that “God's knowledge of the future was limited because he wants our free will decisions to truly be free.” This open theist needs some education on the open view. What books written by open theists have you read? I think I understand the view very well, and if you’re open to hearing it from me, I’d like to assure you that open theism does not “limit” God’s knowledge of the future. But that’s another discussion.

But in response to your friend, you say “If that were true, then why did God harden Pharaoh's heart to show how powerful he was.” I’d encourage you to study up on the biblical notion of “hardening,” because there’s nothing about God’s hardening Pharaoh’s heart that undermines the argument for the incompatibility of definite foreknowledge and human freedom. In other words, there are ways of accounting for God’s hardening of Pharaoh that are consistent with the open theist’s claim that God cannot foreknow as certain future free acts. There’s a lot to say about the nature of freedom and the circumstances under which God may use agents sufficiently resolved in evil or good. And that this is an issue for you tells me you haven’t read up on the arguments. Folks have moved beyond this already. On divine ‘hardening’ please read Roger Forster’s God’s Strategy in Human History. His treatment of the issue will really help you.

Jason: And of course, this open theist denied Scripture and actually had the nerve to proclaim that it was actually Satan who hardened Pharaoh's heart and that both Paul and Moses were mistaken.

Tom: An open theist can agree with Paul and Moses that God hardened Pharaoh. But you may want to reconsider just what such hardening involves.

Jason: That's when I knew there was something faulty about the open view.

Tom: No, that’s when you knew there was something faulty about your friend’s understanding. Don’t assume your friend is accurately representing the open view. Check it out yourself. What have you read?

Jason: But it doesn't stop there. Jesus in Gethsemane did not want to go to the cross. So why would he do so much in Egypt to steer Pharaoh in the right direction yet do nothing when Adam and Eve chose to sin and call for the very cross he was seeking to avoid.

Tom: Now you’re off the open view and on to providence and evil. Questions about how much God does or doesn’t do in this or that situation are NOT germane to the open view per se. I can only encourage you to keep reading.

-------------------

Jason: According to the open view, our sin thus didn't put Jesus on the cross…

Tom: See, again, there really is no one open view take on sin, providence, the atonement, or the truth behind Jesus’ question in the Gethsemane. John Sanders takes on view of Jesus’ question. Boyd takes another. And I’ve run into a couple more from open viewers here on this site. The open view is NOT as uniform on all this questions are you think. So when you friend tells you what HE/SHE believes, it might not be the case that their belief has anything essential to do with the open view.

Jason: And again, by intervening in one free will decision making process but not intervening in others, God places himself as the sole party responsible for the wicked acts he let 'slide by'…

Tom: Only if all the relevant factors that define the context of the one decision and the context of other decisions are exactly the same. But we can never be in a position to know everything there is to know about the changing relevant contextual factors that God has to deal with in pursuing his purposes in this or that circumstance. More certainly the factors are never identical. So you appear to me to be claiming far too much for yourself. You don’t know enough about the world and all the factors God faces in any given situation to render a judgment on God about what he could/should or couldn’t/shouldn’t have done given this or that purpose of his.

Jason: …because his whole objective in intervening in Egypt was to show how powerful he was.  Why not show how powerful he is to all generations and stop the suffering and despair all together?

Tom: Perhaps because there’s a greater display of love, beauty, goodness, and power in not kicking the furniture over every time. Perhaps there are factors God considers in determining how much muscle to flex which escape you. Imagine that.

----------------------

Jason: In my opinion, there is a satisfactory theodicy that is confirmed by the bible.

Tom: Then publish it as soon as possible and let us all in on it, because faithful followers of Christ have disagreed over this stuff for a very long time. You can save us a lot of time and energy.

Jason: God's purpose in creating Adam and Eve was to provide the framework for the later manifestation in Jesus Christ.

Tom: I can agree with this without abandoning the open view. So what’s your point? That since Jesus is the goal, climax, and purpose of creation that the future can’t possibly be open in any respect?

---------------------

Jason: You see, according to Jesus, there is a difference between the flesh after the resurrection and before it.

Tom: No doubt. According to Paul as well. No open theist disagrees.

Jason: Before Jesus' resurrection, he was born, he aged, he could have started his own family, and he was vulnerable to the sin nature or the craving for evil. But after his resurrection, he is immortal, he has no need for marriage sex or reproduction and his sin nature is dead forever. Why the distinction? One ritual explains it all...circumcision. On the figuratve 8th day, or first day of the week, Jesus shed our Adam and Eve flesh and its sin nature for sin nature free glorious immortal flesh. That's what Gethsemane was all about.

Tom: There’s nothing here of interest to the debate over providence or open theism. Where in the world are you going with this Jason? Again, what do you want to discuss? Open theism? Providence? Evil? What?

Jason: When Jesus asked God the Father to take the cup away from him, this was driven by his own sin nature because taking the cup away from him would have nullified God the Father's will requiring him to drink of the cup.

Tom: We probably don’t agree on Christology, or on just what’s going on in the Garden, but it doesn’t matter. There’s nothing essential to the open view that’s at stake here. Open theists themselves disagree over this and other passages where Christology is concerned. Do you get it? Do you see that in defeating this or that interpretation of a passage, or in establishing your view about God’s purposes for creation that you’ve said absolutely nothing that bares on the truth or falsity of the open view?

Do us a favor, Jason. Tell us EXACTLY what you wish to discuss. Spell it out slowly and in short sentences. Do that and we’ll be able to steer things in the right direction.

Peace,

Tom