 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/6/2004 9:32 AM (GMT -6) |   | Carlie is dead, abducted and murdered by Joe Smith. I trust you have been following the events in Sarasota, Florida.
So help me understand this. Imagine a continuum. On the far left side is theological determinism with its unconditional, exhaustive, and efficacious divine decree. On the far right side is, let’s see, um, deism—God creates and steps back to let things work themselves out. On the far left is the micro-managing God unconditionally determining the minutia of history. On the far right is the uninvolved God of deism.
Spread out between these two are other understandings, some farther left because they have more in common with a deterministic view of the world and others toward the right side of the spectrum that are less deterministic and more open. Process theology, I imagine, would be far right but just inside of deism because PT holds that God is “involved” if even only through persuasion. PT, I take it, denies that God ever works through humans compatibilistically. The determinism forming the far left border would perhaps be that view that attempts no explanation of moral responsibility. It admits that humans unconditionally determined by God to commit evil are not responsible in any sense we can understand but that this is inconsequential. God is God and has the right to determine us for hell if he desires. Just inside of this view on the far left, I suppose, would be compatibilism. God unconditionally determines all our choices but “in such a way” as to leave us justly responsible for them. The fact that those choices were unconditionally determined by God is inconsequential to their deserving hell for those choices.
Then there’s classical Arminianism. God unconditionally determines some things and “permits” other things. Foreknowledge is providentially advantageous because it enable God to prevent and permit evils that serve God's purposes. So we can know that any evil that occurs was specifically permitted by God for a specific higher good. I guess this view would be just right of center, on the libertarian side of the spectrum, but very similar to the left side because it shares a "blueprint" worldview.
Further right of this classical Arminian view but still left of process theology would be, let’s say, Doc’s view. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it goes something like this: God is love and does all God can do given his commitment to the rules of engagement of the world he created to maximize good and minimize evil. God can and does sometimes work compatibilistically in directing the libertarianly solidified evil intentions of human beings in a manner most consistent with his purposes, but only after doing all God can do (given his commitment to libertarian free will and the rules of engagement) to prevent the evil that involves God in such compatibilistic working. This is consistent with a God of love working within the rules of engagement to minimize evil and maximize good. We know very little about the rules of engagement beyond God’s overarching purpose for creation—i.e., to be glorified through freely chosen love. But the little we know about these “rules” (i.e., complexity of creation) is enough, in light of the Cross, for us to know that in any given occurrence of evil, God did all God could do to prevent it and then worked as compatibilistically as possible whenever and wherever the rules of engagement to minimize the evil he couldn’t prevent.
The difference between Doc’s view of providence and process theology is, I suppose, that Doc allows for divine intervention and compatibilistic working, even if we cannot know the details about what conditions such intervention.
I’d like to be as accurate as possible in understanding where to place Mephi’s view, but I’m not sure I understand it. I don’t know whether Mephi grants libertarian free will or compatibilistic free will as the ground floor of human constitution. What I am able to gather is that Mephi grants that God can and does work at all the levels held to by others on the spectrum. God can unconditionally determine any evil, ANY evil, for reasons of his own. God can also bring any evil about compatibilistically for reasons of his own. God can also condition his involvement on whatever combination of free-will factors he wishes to. It’s all true, and all true at different times, but we can never know which is true at any given time with respect to a given occurrence of evil. Mephi is completely agnostic about the source of evil in our world. He grants that any of the views on the spectrum provides a possible explanation of the source of evil but that we can never know what the case in fact is. All we can do is choose (libertariangly or compatibilistically?) what our response to evil will be. And as followers of Jesus Christ we have one default response: oppose all evil in faith, hope, and love. But we should be open and prepared to be lead by the Spirit to do otherwise with respect to some evil (i.e., to not oppose some evil).
So, as I pray for Carlie’s family I’m wondering how these different understandings would reach out to Carlie’s family. All, except for Mephi I think, would counsel and comfort out of the framework of their understanding of the source of evil. In constrast, Mephi's response to evil events and the comfort he offers the suffering don't require any view on the source of evil.
So Piper would say (as he did re: 9/11) something like, “God unconditionally ordained your daughter to be kidnapped and murdered. We don’t understand why, but we know that even this event will redound in glory to God, and that's why we're all here and that's why whatever happens happens.” A deist might say, “God created the world to work out its own destiny. You’re daughter was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.” A process theologican (help me out here ya’ll if I’m missing the mark) might respond with, “God attempted to persuade Joe Smith not to murder Carlie, but God is simply unable to work compatibilistically. There’s no other sort of world God can relate to.” A classical Arminian would reply, “God foresaw this and permitted it for some specific good. We might not know what that good is, but we know that all things, even Carlie’s death, 'work together' for some good.” Doc would say (just guessing), “Joe Smith is the only one responsible for your daughter’s death. God is more grieved that any of us are over what’s happened. He did all he could do to prevent this event, but in the sort of world God created, one with free will at work, not even God can prevent every evil. Sometimes God is able to prevent such things. Sometimes he’s not. We can’t always know all the complex factors at work that determine when God is able to prevent such things and when he isn't, but if we look at Jesus hanging on the cross for us we can know for sure that God is the kind of God who did everything he could to save Carlie.”
Mephi, what would you say to Carlie’s Mom? Help me out.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
 |
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 2/6/2004 6:54 PM (GMT -6) | | TGB
I appreciate your summary of the issue across the theological spectrum.
With regard to your initial question, “So help me understand this,” I believe there are two scenarios in which this question is encountered. And these two scenarios necessitate two very different responses.
The first scenario is the acute situation which involves those who are suffering within the immediate context of the evil they have experienced (death, disease, rape, divorce, etc.). In my experience (as a Family Physician) there is no “philosophical or theological construct”—from Determinism to Deism and everything in between (including Open Theism)—that brings comfort to the afflicted within the immediate context of their suffering…Even though those who are suffering often ask (repeatedly) the “Why God?” question. In my experience clichés (even the oft quoted, “God works all things for the good…’’) gives those providing counsel “something to say,” much more so than providing relief to those in need of comfort—No disrespect to Scripture intended here. More elaborate explanations (whether Calvinistic, Arminian, or “Open”) are equally unsatisfying in the face of crisis in my experience.
So, regarding your last question, “What would you say to Carlie’s Mom?” I would “say” as little as possible in the acute situation. Perhaps, one of the most practical things we can learn from the book of Job is the initial response of Job’s friends, who for seven days, SAID NOTHING (2:13), and had they remained true to course would have avoided trouble with the Almighty (42:7-8). Only God, Himself, can bring any measure of peace to our grief, despair, anger, confusion, etc. I have found that, under duress, the most committed Calvinist will still question God’s “plan,” the most “open” Open Theist is prone to question God’s wisdom, and the Atheist usually “invents” a God” to curse
So to the Determinist or the Atheist alike, I simply try to listen and allow them to ventilate their emotions, anger, and even their false doctrine, and pray that God will find a way to reach them and be present with them in their suffering. Only God can heal some wounds even in the context of “proper” theology. Often, I have found that God has to bring peace and healing DESPITE our counsel and not because of it.
Those who are called to come along side of those who are suffering must be faithful in prayer, attentive to physical and social needs, and supportive of emotional issues. I believe we often under estimate the magnitude of the “ministry of presence.”
The second scenario I would describe as “pre-crisis apologetics” (Recall Schaefer’s “pre-evangelism”). This scenario fits into discussions such as these in which one attempts to assist others in building a foundation on which the presence of God can rest during time of trouble. I hasten to add, again, that it is the presence of God and not the philosophical or psychological construct that brings peace. So, for “he who hath an ear,” we reason from the scripture and appeal to man’s intuition (viz. Roman’s 1) in discussion. The ultimate point of the discussions in this scenario is to give evidence that God, indeed, loves man infinitely. Any systematic theology that follows must never veer from this tenet and must never violate man’s intuition on this point. Since love is only from God, the love man experiences, while of lesser magnitude, is not of a different, much less a contradictory, kind than the love of God.
For example, “God so LOVED the WORLD,” when wedded with the Calvinist’s belief—“God unconditionally ordained your daughter to be kidnapped and murdered. We don’t understand why, but we know that even this event will redound in glory to God, and that's why we're all here and that's why whatever happens, happens.”—is counterintuitive to man’s GOD-GIVEN intuition of love. “A house divided cannot stand.”
Likewise, the Deist’s God violates man’s intuition of love as “being involved” by definition.
The Process God fails to bring comfort because He is ultimately impotent and, hence, cannot offer a final guarantee.
The Arminian God, while claiming to love, is metaphysically dependent on His knowledge (foreknowledge) and, hence, IS LIMITED. Ultimately, He takes credit for that which could not be avoided. Furthermore, the “eternal now” of the Arminian God transcends man, rendering love, as man understands love (relational), a rouse.
In contrast, the Open God has chosen to redeem man’s suffering by entering into the fallen environment that He did not will. In the process he genuinely relates to man consistent with the concept of Love that He gave to man. And He continues to do all that He can to redeem suffering given the (temporary) limitations and constraints incumbent in the fallen world. Ultimately, the (omnipotent) power of His love guarantees complete redemption to all who would accept His love and follow His example in faith.
Absolute trust in a loving Father in no uncertain terms is the bedrock of redemption in suffering. However, it is impossible to allow one’s self to be embraced by a God that one does not fully trust because the “love” He has rendered is “paradoxical” (even contradictory) to our own experience. Our trust is eroded and becomes arbitrary. The tragedy in systematic theology of (re)defining God’s love as ultimately paradoxical, mysterious, or unknowable is that, ultimately, during time of crisis we want to be held and not taught. So, hopefully, someone along the way has planted and cultivated the genuine seed of God’s love in Carlie’s Mom—that is as intuitive to her as her love for her daughter—which will allow the presence of God to embrace her during this time of suffering.
To God alone be the glory,
John
As Twain said, “If I had more time I could make it shorter.”
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/8/2004 2:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
quote:
The difference between Doc’s view of providence and process theology is, I suppose, that Doc allows for divine intervention and compatibilistic working, even if we cannot know the details about what conditions such intervention.
First of all, let me say that I appreciate this statement. I'm glad that we are recognizing that Doc's view IS basically grounded in the process metaphysic largely...but with the difference of God actually being able to speak and act. Good show, Tom. (This is why I would refer to open view theism as trinitarian process theism)
______________________________
Tom:
quote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it goes something like this: God is love and does all God can do given his commitment to the rules of engagement of the world he created to maximize good and minimize evil. God can and does sometimes work compatibilistically in directing the libertarianly solidified evil intentions of human beings in a manner most consistent with his purposes, but only after doing all God can do (given his commitment to libertarian free will and the rules of engagement) to prevent the evil that involves God in such compatibilistic working. This is consistent with a God of love working within the rules of engagement to minimize evil and maximize good. We know very little about the rules of engagement beyond God’s overarching purpose for creation—i.e., to be glorified through freely chosen love. But the little we know about these “rules” (i.e., complexity of creation) is enough, in light of the Cross, for us to know that in any given occurrence of evil, God did all God could do to prevent it and then worked as compatibilistically as possible whenever and wherever the rules of engagement to minimize the evil he couldn’t prevent.
I am going to use this framework to show HOW SIMILAR my view really is to Doc's. Follow closely. All italics mine.
God is love and does all God can do given two important things: 1) his commitment to the rules of engagement of the world he created to maximize good and minimize evil and 2) God's own divine purposes for creation that WE may not be privy to. God can and does sometimes work compatibilistically in directing the libertarianly solidified evil intentions of human beings in a manner most consistent with his purposes, but only after doing all God can do (given his commitment to libertarian free will and the rules of engagement) to prevent the evil that involves God in such compatibilistic working. In other words, God NEVER just allows liberarian free evil or compatibilistically works through evil just to do it, whimsically. There is ALWAYS a good reason for it, though we may not see that reason. This is consistent with a God of love working within the rules of engagement to minimize evil and maximize good. We know very little about the rules of engagement and the TOTALITY of God's purposes in creation beyond God’s overarching purpose for creation—i.e., to be glorified through freely chosen love. But the little we know about these “rules” and purposes (i.e., complexity of creation) is enough, in light of the Cross, for us to know that in any given occurrence of evil, God did all God could do to prevent it and then worked as compatibilistically as possible whenever and wherever the rules of engagement and unknown purposes would permit to minimize the evil he couldn’t prevent.
This is the difference between Doc's view and my view. As I've been saying before, the only real difference between Doc's view and my view, with regard to cosmology, is that I add one more factor that Doc doesn't seem to: God's purposes beyond God's overarching purposes that we know about! In my mind, this changes everything, especially when we factor in things like the butterfly effect and what not.
____________________________
Tom (emphasis mine):
quote:
Doc would say (just guessing), “Joe Smith is the only one responsible for your daughter’s death. God is more grieved that any of us are over what’s happened. He did all he could do to prevent this event, but in the sort of world God created, one with free will at work, not even God can prevent every evil. Sometimes God is able to prevent such things. Sometimes he’s not. We can’t always know all the complex factors at work that determine when God is able to prevent such things and when he isn't, but if we look at Jesus hanging on the cross for us we can know for sure that God is the kind of God who did everything he could to save Carlie.”
Ok. HERE is the best place to show my problem with Doc's view. To me, this seems completely wrong! By what stretch of the imagination can Doc have such insight into this chaotic world of ours, and God's interaction in it, that he can make sure a certain statement. This is what ticked me off about his response to Sept. 11th. It seemed like he was saying this very thing. He wouldn't know WHAT factors all played into Joe Smith doing what he did. He wouldn't know WHAT factors contributed to the daughter actually dying. He wouldn't know any of this. So, hopefully, Doc wouldn't be so foolish to make such a claim like that, given his finitude.
Now, I do think that I know Doc would probably try to say something like this: Joe was ULTIMATELY responsible in that it was ULTIMATELY his self-chosen homicidal character from whence these things came. But to me, this just goes back to the pyromaniac example I had given before. I don't see how manipulation of a self-solidified being for someone else's OWN ends, whatever those may be doesn't in some way lay responsibility for the act on the shoulders of the manipulating being. Sure, you can say, as Doc probably would, that if such things occur, that it is to insure a minimization of damage and evil. Fine, well, and good. But that still doesn't solve the problem of who was definitively involved in THIS PARTICULAR EXAMPLE of evil. How do we know that if Joe had not killed Carlie, that Joe WOULD HAVE killed a group of girl scouts that had been nearby at the same time..and God knew this?? How do we know that God, realizing Joe's homicidal intent, didn't specifically point out Carlie to him, in order to minimize the evil that would result from Joe's homicidal actions?? How do we know that this wasn't an instance of God having to switch the train tracks so that only ONE would be killed instead of MANY?? We don't...and if Doc will admit it, neither does he.
Are you seeing my point? Because of situations like this, how could ANYONE say without divine revelation from God that ANY evil was UNAMBIGUOUSLY this or that???
{Question to hone the point: Imagine that your son or daughter were a soldier in the army. Let's say that the leaders placed one unit ,that had your son or daughter and others in it, in a "suicide" position stategically without telling them. As expected, casualities were 100%. Would it make you feel better about your child's death in an obvious suicide mission was deemed NECESSARY, given all factors involved, to make it possible to save 4 more units on another part of the battlefield? Would it make you feel better about it being YOUR child being killed rather than someone else's?}
Just getting started,
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 2/8/2004 3:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph,
So, how would you counsel Carlie's parents? Would you give an answer similar to Doc's but add the caveat "but of course there is always the possibility that God was using Joe's murder of your daughter for a higher purpose"? Example, it is possible that God was behind every single act of bigotry (lynching etc.) in this country for a higher purpose. So, given this possibility, do you always temper your admiration of those who tried to counter acts of bigotry with the stated assumption that God was not behind every act of bigotry? "Yes, I admire Martin Luther King, but he may have been acting to thwart God's purposes". This possibility is discounted by us and I don't think God would be to unhappy with us if we acted as if it were not true, even if it were true.
It seems to me that your problem with Doc's view of 9-11 is that it is not at all like the bigotry possibility. You may think that perhaps it is the case that God was punishing (disciplining) the U.S. and its misuse of its economic (WTC) and military (Pentagon) power. (Notice what institution did not get hit because it was foiled by the "let's roll" gang!). Doc does give reasons for his views (there are other more evil nations, would a wake-up call be effective etc), just as one could give reasons why we should have fought acts of bigotry.
I would imagine that Doc would agree with you that God could be behind Carlie's murder (but even here I don't think Joseph Smith is off the hook), but that possiblity is like the bigotry possiblity, it can be discounted for our purposes (counseling etc) and God would not flinch even if God was responsible for the victim being Carlie.
So, I really do not think there is much difference between your views. We have to make moral judgments from our perspective (Doc), but we also ought to walk humbly before our God (Meph).
"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."
--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/8/2004 6:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Mephi. Back atcha in a bit. Surf's up here in Maui and I gotta get down to the beach, then I have a round of golf at Kapalua. Then I'm going out on a boat to watch the whales up close.  I'll get back to ya tonight!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/8/2004 1:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: First of all, let me say that I appreciate this statement. I'm glad that we are recognizing that Doc's view IS basically grounded in the process metaphysic largely...but with the difference of God actually being able to speak and act.
Tom: God actually speaking and acting! Pretty huge difference I’d say. I’m not overly concerned with what we call things, but the differences here just as equally justify not calling Doc’s view a “process” anything. And if we take into account what process theologians say about open theism (i.e., David R. Griffin saying he couldn’t stomach open theism any more than he can classical theism because openness is too similar to the classical view and so not worthy of God) then perhaps your point is at best moot. But that’s cool. If being openness means I share a lot in common with process metaphysic, all the better for process theologians!
Mephi: God is love and does all God can do given two important things: 1) his commitment to the rules of engagement of the world he created to maximize good and minimize evil and 2) God's own divine purposes for creation that WE may not be privy to.
Tom: I honestly don’t see how your changes (adding #2) affect a change in our fight to prevent evil or our response to evil. Unless the divine “purposes” of your (2) redefine “good and evil” in (1), there’s nothing new added by (2).
Mephi: In other words, God NEVER just allows liberarian free evil or compatibilistically works through evil just to do it, whimsically. There is ALWAYS a good reason for it, though we may not see that reason.
Tom: Right. Except where I want to say we know the overarching good reason (to received the greatest amount of glory through creating the greatest amount of love possible) but are ignorant of the factors that determine why some evil is not prevented, you want to ADD a good reason we are ignorant of for why some evil is not always prevented, and, in addition, claim that we can never know which “purpose” of God is at work in the world (viz., whether God’s actions were aimed at fulfilling the overarching good purpose we do know about [i.e., that we know and share his love] or whether they were oriented toward…toward what?, a secret unrevealed purpose OTHER than maximizing love?
Mephi: We know very little about the rules of engagement and the TOTALITY of God's purposes in creation beyond God’s overarching purpose for creation—i.e., to be glorified through freely chosen love….
This is the difference between Doc's view and my view. As I've been saying before, the only real difference between Doc's view and my view, with regard to cosmology, is that I add one more factor that Doc doesn't seem to: God's purposes beyond God's overarching purposes that we know about! In my mind, this changes everything, especially when we factor in things like the butterfly effect and what not.
Tom: In what sense is “God’s being glorified through freely chosen love” the overarching purpose for creation if there are other purposes God has for creation BEYOND this overarching purpose? If there are purposes “beyond” God’s glory in maximized love and goodness, then God’s glory in maximized goodness isn’t “overarching” is it? It’s just one purpose God has for SOME of us. He has other purposes for OTHERS. I don’t know how else to understand “beyond.”
Mephi: Ok. HERE is the best place to show my problem with Doc's view. To me, this seems completely wrong! By what stretch of the imagination can Doc have such insight into this chaotic world of ours, and God's interaction in it, that he can make su[ch] a certain statement. This is what ticked me off about his response to Sept. 11th.
Tom: Why would it tick you off so much though? I mean, you do grant that Doc’s take on 9/11 is one POSSIBLE understanding of God’s involvement. You in fact argue that God does sometimes involve himself in preventing evil in precisely the manner that Doc argued God sought to prevent 9/11. Doc’s saying that God did on 9/11 what you grant God does in fact do lots of times. So I guess I don’t understand why this would upset you.
I mean, I could wonder how it is you wanted us to be open to the Spirit’s voice. You said we should be sensitive to be led by the Spirit on a case by case situation. But when Doc voiced what he felt the Spirit was saying and doing, you got upset. I’m confused. Is it just the fact that somebody actually claimed to know what God’s purposes and involvement were in a specific occurrence of evil that upset you? If so, then what can you mean by suggesting we be prepared to hear from God on occasion? If you grant that the Spirit sometimes reveals such things to us, how can you get upset when somebody claims to have such insight especially when you agree that the insight is many times truly the case? I mean, here’s Doc on this occasion claiming to have insight into a situation that you in fact agree is the case many times in our world. I don’t get it.
Mephi: It seemed like he was saying this very thing. He wouldn't know WHAT factors all played into Joe Smith doing what he did. He wouldn't know WHAT factors contributed to the daughter actually dying. He wouldn't know any of this. So, hopefully, Doc wouldn't be so foolish to make such a claim like that, given his finitude.
Tom: But the belief that God did all he could do--in light of whatever compatibilistic amo the rules of engagement permitted on this occasion--to prevent Carlie's death doesn’t arise out of our finitude and ignorance. It arises out of what we DO know about God’s character and purposes.
Mephi: Now, I do think that I know Doc would probably try to say something like this: Joe was ULTIMATELY responsible in that it was ULTIMATELY his self-chosen homicidal character from whence these things came. But to me, this just goes back to the pyromaniac example I had given before. I don't see how manipulation of a self-solidified being for someone else's OWN ends, whatever those may be doesn't in some way lay responsibility for the act on the shoulders of the manipulating being. Sure, you can say, as Doc probably would, that if such things occur, that it is to insure a minimization of damage and evil. Fine, well, and good.
Tom: It certainly seems to be well and good in my view.
Mephi: But that still doesn't solve the problem of who was definitively involved in THIS PARTICULAR EXAMPLE of evil.
Tom: It more than answers the question of who was definitively involved.
Mephi: How do we know that if Joe had not killed Carlie, that Joe WOULD HAVE killed a group of girl scouts that had been nearby at the same time and God knew this? How do we know that God, realizing Joe's homicidal intent, didn't specifically point out Carlie to him, in order to minimize the evil that would result from Joe's homicidal actions?
Tom: I’m perfectly cool with this. No problem whatsoever. And I doubt Doc would claim such a thing cannot in fact happen. But—and here’s my point—if God was instrumental in compatibilistically (assuming the rules of engagement on THIS particular occasion opened this option up to God) directing Smith to Carlie instead of what God knew would come about otherwise (i.e., a slaughtered group of girl scouts), then that’s what I call a God of love doing all God could do to maximize love and goodness and minimize evil. Positing some hidden purpose “beyond” this is neither necessary nor helpful.
Mephi: How do we know that this wasn't an instance of God having to switch the train tracks so that only ONE would be killed instead of MANY?? We don't...and if Doc will admit it, neither does he.
Tom: Why would Doc want to deny this possibility? Maybe he'll let us know. But I don’t deny it. My point is that even if Carlie’s death was a case of switching the tracks, it remains true that a God of love did all he could do to prevent this evil (all he could "given his purpose to receive glory through maximized love and goodness). There’s no need to suggest that God may have had some purpose “beyond” this.
Mephi: Are you seeing my point? Because of situations like this, how could ANYONE say without divine revelation from God that ANY evil was UNAMBIGUOUSLY this or that?
Tom: I don’t see how we can say it was anything other than unambiguously the case that the God of love did all he could do to prevent Carlie’s death. If somebody switches the tracks, Mephi, it’s because he couldn’t outright stop the train and switching the tracks became the most loving thing left to do. And this is perfectly compatible with being unambiguous about God's doing all he could do to prevent Carlie's death. And I don't see what forbids us from being unambiguously clear about this. My objection is to the notion that we are better off if we posit some divine purpose "beyond" maximizing love and goodness and preventing and/or minimizing evil that God has in compatibilistically directing Smith to Carlie.
Mephi: Question to hone the point: Imagine that your son or daughter were a soldier in the army. Let's say that the leaders placed one unit that had your son or daughter and others in it, in a "suicide" position stategically without telling them. As expected, casualities were 100%. Would it make you feel better about your child's death [if] an obvious suicide mission was deemed NECESSARY, given all factors involved, to make it possible to save 4 more units on another part of the battlefield?
Tom: Of course it would make me feel better to know my child’s death, though tragic, secured the lives of many others. And it would also make me feel better if, assuming I was ignorant of these details on the battlefield, I knew the character of the general in charge to be unquestionably committed to maximizing good and minimizing evil (i.e., saving as many as possible but yet securing the destruction of the enemy). No problem. It’s your attempt to insert a divine purpose we know nothing about that confuses things for me. It’s as if you’re saying the general had a purpose of his own we know nothing about (i.e., unrelated to securing the destruction of the enemy while maximizing good and minimizing evil) and he sends soldiers off to die for it. That’s problematic. Now, you could call me on this by asking me, “But why balk at this if you really trust in the character of the general?” I’d reply by saying, “My point exactly. If you trust the character of the general, then why posit this other purpose?” If God is love and created us to love and be loved, and if he does all he can to fulfill this purpose for creation, then why posit other divine purposes we know nothing about in order to explain the crap that goes on around us. I honestly don’t get it.
What evil are you able to account for by positing unknown unrevealed “purposes” that you wouldn’t be able to account for by positing one purpose—to bring pleasure and glory to God through experiencing his love and sharing it with the world?
Mephi: Would it make you feel better about it being YOUR child being killed rather than someone else's?
Tom: Not sure I even understand the question. Are you asking whether I would prefer that my child give her life to save others or that someone else’s child give their life to save others?
One last question for me. Do you say anything unambiguous about racism as you talk to people about your involvement in developing that part of WHC’s vision? Are they just your thoughts or do you really feel your sharing God’s heart on the matter?
Dude, sorry for the length. I got carried away.
See ya next weekend!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 2/9/2004 12:01 PM (GMT -6) | | I didn't read all the posts, actually only most of the first one, but the topic intrigued me. So to the Open Theists you would respond to the family of Carlie that "gratitous evil happens, it was pretty much beyond God's control, He's weeping for you", and this is suppose to bring some sense of comfort to the family? This doesn't make sense to me. How is that comforting? I would assume tell Carlie's parents that "Naked I came from my mother's womb and naked I shall return, the Lord gaveth and the taketh away, BLESSED be the name of the Lord" Job 1:20, 21. Please help me here, cause i'm not understanding where the OV is coming from on this one.
blessings,
borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 2/9/2004 3:42 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by borg
I didn't read all the posts, actually only most of the first one, but the topic intrigued me. So to the Open Theists you would respond to the family of Carlie that "gratitous evil happens, it was pretty much beyond God's control, He's weeping for you", and this is suppose to bring some sense of comfort to the family? This doesn't make sense to me. How is that comforting? I would assume tell Carlie's parents that "Naked I came from my mother's womb and naked I shall return, the Lord gaveth and the taketh away, BLESSED be the name of the Lord" Job 1:20, 21. Please help me here, cause i'm not understanding where the OV is coming from on this one.
blessings,
borg
Hello Borg,
I am one of the newest to this disussion board, but I would like to comment on what you've written. You are not alone in this struggle. What do you say to those who struggle or to the victims of tragedy or disaster? What do you say to Carlie's parents that will bring comfort to them? We all want to bring comfort and perhaps the spirit in which we communicate whatever we decide to say will speak louder than the words themselves. That is often the case. I understand the desire to be theologically correct but unfortunately even this view (the open view) is open to question. However, from my point of view, it makes the most sense and offers the most comfort. Please let me explain why. When disaster (in any form) strikes we look for answers. Personally Borg, if I were Carlie's mom, I would not find comfort in being told that an all powerful, all loving Father is in control of all things and that for some divine purpose "allowed" this to happen and that good can come of it. Yes, the Father is always striving to bring good out of even the most heinous crimes, disasters... But, I also believe that He was doing all He could do to stop this crime. I believe that an all loving, all good, all powerful Father would do that. I also believe that He created us as humans with free will and that He created other agents (angels - some of whom rebelled) with free will as well and that those are forces to reckon with. I have not mentioned the complexity of creation which God himself reminds Job of in Job chapter 38. Borg, I believe that evil, as Dr Boyd says, is not about the Father, or the Father's character and that it is instead about the complexity of creation and the arbitrariness of life. Otherwise how could He be all powerful, all loving, completely good and in absolute control - and yet not intervene. It just doesn't make sense to me. How'm I doing so far Borg? Does any of this make sense to you? It has brought me great comfort. Another factor here is prayer. The Father responds to prayer, but then again, not always. And how do we answer that? We can't. Their are way too many variables at play in this world.
I don't want to sound like I have all the answers Borg. I don't of course. So, what would I say to Carlie's parents? If I could I would wrap my arms around them and just hold them. I would cry with them. I would probably say as little as possible. I would assure them of the Father's love for them and tell them that He didn't want this to happen and that I'm sure He's grieving too.
Look at Jesus. Look at the One who told the disciples to let the children come to Him. He loved them. And Jesus is the "imprint" of the Father, the exact representation for us to see. Would Jesus have tried to stop such an attack? I have no doubt He would have. I have no doubt that believers were being slaughtered while He walked this earth and that he cried. The most powerful verse in the Bible is the verse that says, "Jesus wept." He is a compassionate Father. That much I know. That much I rely on. And I would pray for Carlie's parents and all those who loved her. I would ask for comfort - the kind that only He can give and that others would reach out to them with the love of the Father.
Borg, I believe that the only way in which the Father "allowed" this to happen is that He created a world in which human beings and agents have free will. I'm glad He created us this way. It makes genuine love possible. It also makes nightmares like this one possible. In Daniel chapter 10 - Daniel's request was hindered by the Prince of Persia who delayed God's messenger in reaching Daniel. We battle not against flesh and blood (at least not only against flesh and blood) but against powers and principalities...BUT again, the good news is that nothing, none of those, can ever, ever, separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus (Romans 8 ... a beautiful chapter)
God Bless you Borg.
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 2/9/2004 4:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Yes, Jo-Anne! I agree with your response.
borg quote:
So to the Open Theists you would respond to the family of Carlie that "gratitous evil happens, it was pretty much beyond God's control, He's weeping for you", and this is suppose to bring some sense of comfort to the family? This doesn't make sense to me. How is that comforting?
I am an open theist so I will take a jab at your question. The parable of the wheat and the tares comes to mind. The tares represent the evil that all people find themselves living in -- the matrix of sin and desperation that permeates our world. In the end God will destroy the tares but for now God chooses to let the tares be among the wheat in order not to pull the wheat along with the tares. God allows evil to be part of our world for NOW but in the end the tares will be destroyed in the fire and only the wheat will remain. The tares are with us because God has created a world with freedom to choose. To take away the tares of the world would leave us with no choice for we could only choose good. Evil exists only for NOW.
The only comfort I could TRY to share with this family is the comfort that Jesus is right beside them through their pain. God does care. Carlie is safe and secure in Jesus' arms now and her nightmare is over.
While the tares remain with the wheat the most important thing we can do for one another is pray.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/9/2004 4:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah: I wonder about that too. Perhaps it would help if someone could give NT examples where Jesus does this "greater good" train track switchin thing. Are there examples?
Tom: Not that I know of. The only thing that immediately comes to mind as an example of divine compatibilistic involvement is God’s use of Pharaoh and God’s use of Babylon as an instrument of judgment upon Israel. That sort of thing. But the idea of “switching the tracks” seems to make sense if we’re going to say God always does all God can do to maximize love and goodness and minimize evil. But in such cases the responsibility for the evil falls entirely on the shoulders of the person. If a madman runs a train at full speed intent on squashing 10 girls scouts he’s tied to the tracks, and you did everything in your power to stop the train and free the girls but were not sucessful, and you’re only options available came down to a) letting him run over the girl scouts or b) switching the track and redirecting the train to run over a single girl scout, you’d switch the train, and you ought to. In such a case you’d be absolved of all responsibility for the death of the one girl. You in fact did all you could to minimize evil and maximize good. The mad train driver is alone responsible.
Selah: It's hard to say how anyone should counsel Carlie's mother in this case. I know for me I couldn't hang the ultimate blame on this guy Joe. Personally, (when the timing was right) I would have to talk about Joes "matrix" - the internal make-up of Joe's mind, will, and emotions from installation #1,2,3 up until the event. In other words, though Joe is morally responsible for this act of evil, (and accountable to God for it) there still remains that question of the cards he was delt, the life he lived, and how he was impacted along his journey etc.
Tom: I’m with ya Selah (and John too above). I wouldn’t give Carlie’s family a theology lesson at the wrong time. But as you suggested, most people eventually get around the THINKING through such experiences (as opposed to being overwhelmed EMOTIONALLY by them). My sister’s only daughter was hit by a car (she was a pedestrian) and killed (senselessly) by a guy who fell asleep at the wheel. After some time passed, Linda and I were able to talk theology. But that moment had to come later.
Joes’s matrix is a great point. It’s always there, forming the context of every event. Perhaps the politicians and voters of Florida share somehow in Carlie’s death by setting the laws for repeat offenders and those who violate their parole as they were. I don’t know. But one thing’s for sure: God did more than anyone to prevent Carlie’s death—given the rules of engagement in that specific matrix.
borg: So to the Open Theists you would respond to the family of Carlie that "gratitous evil happens…
Tom: Open theism doesn’t entail gratuitous evil. Some open theists (like me) argue that all evil is gratuitous (even the switching of the tracks, for the evil choices that make switching the tracks necessary are themselves gratuitous). But some open theists (like Mephi—I THINK, not sure) deny that any evil is gratuitous. But I'm often wrong in guessing what Mephi believes! 
borg: …it was pretty much beyond God's control, He's weeping for you", and this is suppose to bring some sense of comfort to the family?
Tom: No theology is going to take the pain out of Carlie’s death for those who knew and loved her, including theological determinism. But Carlie’s family will, if they haven’t already, begin to think through Carlie’s death and ask, Where was God? Did God allow this? Why would he allow it? Couldn’t he stop it? Perhaps they’ll ask, Did God determine this and why? The different answers Christians give to these questions will certainly play a part in influencing Carlie’s family to respond to her death in helpful or hurtful ways. Their “comfort” is not unimportant, and we want to be there to say nothing and just hold them. But their “response” to the event is critical, for it determines how, or even whether, they believe in or go on believing in and loving God.
borg: This doesn't make sense to me. How is that comforting? I would assume tell Carlie's parents that "Naked I came from my mother's womb and naked I shall return, the Lord gaveth and the taketh away, BLESSED be the name of the Lord" Job 1:20, 21. Please help me here, cause i'm not understanding where the OV is coming from on this one.
Tom: There is some question regarding whether or not Job’s words are intended to represent the conclusion we all ought to make about all evil. I’m not certain myself about just how Job's words are to be taken. If they're the conclusion, then they would seem to remove any need for the rest of the book. Why write or say anything else if it's all God and that's that? The problem with the “God brings all things to pass exactly as he wishes” thinking is that it includes the vast majority of people (thus far) being created specifically for hell. That’s not an understanding I find to be biblical.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 2/9/2004 5:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Borg,
If the context of the conversation is that man’s concept of Justice is arbitrary—i.e., Justice is “just whatever God says it is without correlation to man’s intuition” then it appears to me that “God killed your daughter” (Calvinism) is no more of a “comfort” than “Your daughter may have been a victim of gratuitous evil” (OT).
Both Calvinism and OT claim God can redeem any situation (as per Rom 8:28).
With Calvinism—God makes the mess then God cleans it up.
With OT—Satan and/or man makes the mess and God cleans it up.
I believe that Scripture supports the latter and submit that the latter is certainly more praise worthy.
However, see my previous post for what I would actually say to the parents—and it would be neither of the above in the acute context.
To God alone be the glory,
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 2/9/2004 5:11 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Selah: I wonder about that too. Perhaps it would help if someone could give NT examples where Jesus does this "greater good" train track switchin thing. Are there examples?
Tom: Not that I know of. The only thing that immediately comes to mind as an example of divine compatibilistic involvement is God’s use of Pharaoh and God’s use of Babylon as an instrument of judgment upon Israel. That sort of thing. But the idea of “switching the tracks” seems to make sense if we’re going to say God always does all God can do to maximize love and goodness and minimize evil. But in such cases the responsibility for the evil falls entirely on the shoulders of the person. If a madman runs a train at full speed intent on squashing 10 girls scouts he’s tied to the tracks, and you did everything in your power to stop the train and free the girls but were not sucessful, and you’re only options available came down to a) letting him run over the girl scouts or b) switching the track and redirecting the train to run over a single girl scout, you’d switch the train, and you ought to. In such a case you’d be absolved of all responsibility for the death of the one girl. You in fact did all you could to minimize evil and maximize good. The mad train driver is alone responsible.
Selah: It's hard to say how anyone should counsel Carlie's mother in this case. I know for me I couldn't hang the ultimate blame on this guy Joe. Personally, (when the timing was right) I would have to talk about Joes "matrix" - the internal make-up of Joe's mind, will, and emotions from installation #1,2,3 up until the event. In other words, though Joe is morally responsible for this act of evil, (and accountable to God for it) there still remains that question of the cards he was delt, the life he lived, and how he was impacted along his journey etc.
Tom: I’m with ya Selah (and John too above). I wouldn’t give Carlie’s family a theology lesson at the wrong time. But as you suggested, most people eventually get around the THINKING through such experiences (as opposed to being overwhelmed EMOTIONALLY by them). My sister’s only daughter was hit by a car (she was a pedestrian) and killed (senselessly) by a guy who fell asleep at the wheel. After some time passed, Linda and I were able to talk theology. But that moment had to come later.
Joes’s matrix is a great point. It’s always there, forming the context of every event. Perhaps the politicians and voters of Florida share somehow in Carlie’s death by setting the laws for repeat offenders and those who violate their parole as they were. I don’t know. But one thing’s for sure: God did more than anyone to prevent Carlie’s death—given the rules of engagement in that specific matrix.
borg: So to the Open Theists you would respond to the family of Carlie that "gratitous evil happens…
Tom: Open theism doesn’t entail gratuitous evil. Some open theists (like me) argue that all evil is gratuitous (even the switching of the tracks, for the evil choices that make switching the tracks necessary are themselves gratuitous). But some open theists (like Mephi—I THINK, not sure) deny that any evil is gratuitous. But I'm often wrong in guessing what Mephi believes!
borg: …it was pretty much beyond God's control, He's weeping for you", and this is suppose to bring some sense of comfort to the family?
Tom: No theology is going to take the pain out of Carlie’s death for those who knew and loved her, including theological determinism. But Carlie’s family will, if they haven’t already, begin to think through Carlie’s death and ask, Where was God? Did God allow this? Why would he allow it? Couldn’t he stop it? Perhaps they’ll ask, Did God determine this and why? The different answers Christians will certainly play a part in influencing Carlie’s family respond to her death in helpful or hurtful ways. Their “comfort” is not unimportant. But their “response” is critical.
borg: This doesn't make sense to me. How is that comforting? I would assume tell Carlie's parents that "Naked I came from my mother's womb and naked I shall return, the Lord gaveth and the taketh away, BLESSED be the name of the Lord" Job 1:20, 21. Please help me here, cause i'm not understanding where the OV is coming from on this one.
Tom: There is some question regarding whether or not Job’s words are intended to represent the conclusion we all ought to make about all evil. I’m not certain myself. But the problem with the “God brings all things to pass exactly as he wishes” thinking is that it includes the vast majority of people (thus far) being created specifically for hell. That’s not an understanding I find to be biblical.
Tom
I may indeed be in over my head here or treading water and dangerously close to swallowing some of it. But, I'm going to jump in anyway and comment on Borg's comment regarding the plight of Job: "The Love giveth and ..." This is my own understanding which always remains open. I am eager to listen and to learn. Satan was an uninvited and unwelcome (though I won't say unexpected) guest in the counsel of the heavenlies. I was amazed that there is a counsel in the heavenlies (so much goes on on an ongoing basis that we are unaware of). This epic poem (Job) clues us in to that reality. Job tries to make sense of the suffering that he is experiencing. It doesn't make any sense at all to us. After all, Job was the most righteous man that God could find and even then it seems God "allows" what is about to happen to Job. But, God himself steps in to correct Job's misguided theology in chapter 38. Another thing that I thought of in looking at this book is that the Father did step in and probably much sooner than we realize. In finding the most righteous man He could find in Job - perhaps He spared some other poor soul who could not have withstood this challenge of Satan. And my understanding is that it was a challenge of God's sovereignty and a question that had to be answered..."If all else is stripped away, will he still serve You?" It was Satan taunting the Father and because he has free will and a considerable amount of influence (he is after all the ruler of this world for a time), the Father chose wisely when He "chose" Job and He also set boundaries. He did not give Satan free reign in Job's life.
I do not believe it was God's choice or desire or design or plan for Job's life - that he suffer. I believe it is the same today as it was in Job's day. God's character hasn't changed. In Jesus we see the character of the Father - the heart of the Father and the answer to many questions that seem unanswerable. "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh...?" I don't think so and I don't find any comfort in that statement. I think that is what Job sincerely thought until the Father stepped in and described to him the complexity of the cosmos and the forces at play. Satan's free will is a "time limited offer" only and one day it will expire! Thank God!
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 2/9/2004 6:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Sorry Borg,
I forgot to respond to your Scriptural citation from Job. I appreciate you focusing the issue on Scripture. Sometimes the Discussion Board gets so “philosophical” that we forget to come back to Scripture.
Regarding Job 1:20-22, we must “paint with very fine strokes” in our interpretation. The best commentary we have on the words of Job (and his friends) comes from the Almighty, Himself (cp. 38:2—“Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?”). God rebukes what Job has said. In essence God declares Job “has not a clue.” Job has, on the one hand, “DARKENED THE COUNSEL OF THE LORD.” And on the other hand we are told that Job “did not sin” (1:22, 2:10) and that Job “spoke rightly” (42:7).
Resolution of the two poles is implied in the phrase, “Job spoke ‘rightly.’” Obviously speaking “rightly” does not mean that Job spoke “correctly.” Else, God would not have rebuked him. Furthermore, Job went on to accuse God of many horrendous things. So, the rebuke (from God) alone calls in to question anything Job has said prior to chapter 38.
Now let’s bring out the really fine brush. What about 1:22 and 2:10—“In all this Job did not sin with his lips”—which immediately follows the cultural mantra, “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away”?
Recall, Job was not privy to the prologue, as it were. A major point of the story and the foundation of God’s confidence in Job was God’s expectation that Job would not assume God was behind His calamity and curse God—EVEN DESPITE JOB’S IGNORANCE of who was really behind the calamity (Satan) as per the heavenly prologue!!!
What was the “sin” that Job did not commit?—“Charging God with wrong doing.” Job did not curse God. So, Job passed the test to this point. However, in light of the many “incorrect” things Job said about God, it is clear that the hermanuetical line is draw between sin and pretense (of Job’s friends) and not between sin and doctrinal correctness.
Ultimately, I find comfort in a God who declares He can redeem whatever Satan throws at Him—Hence, the last Chapter of Job—God redeemed. No doubt, “REDEEMED HOW I LOVE TO PROCLAIM IT!!!” is the final mantra of Job. The game was tough, but God picked a winner in Job.
I have much more admiration for a hitter (God) who hits “real” pitches from an ace pitcher (The Satan of Scripture) than I have for a hitter who hits pitches from a preprogrammed pitching machine (Calvin’s Satan).
For me one of the most incredible revelations in Scripture (via the author of Job, not to mention the author of Genesis, the Gospels, etc.) is that God doesn’t have to “program” Satan in order to redeem. God can “knock it out of the park” regardless of the “heat” Satan puts across the plate.
God doesn’t have to have a bit in the horse mouth to break the horse.
God doesn’t have to know your next move to beat you at chess.
God doesn’t have to have a rudder to steer the ship.
So, a (very real) maverick, cavalier, arrogant, erratic, capricious angel shows up and challenges God to a duel hoping to embarrass Him in front of the heavenly host and God steps up to the plate and says “show me your stuff.” Now that’s a God I can “shave my head and worship” as did Job. And I declare with Job, “There is no way God did this to me. My redemption is Real and not a charade!”
To God alone be the glory,
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 2/9/2004 6:52 PM (GMT -6) | | [quote]Originally posted by Laika
johnmd, VERY GOOD STUFF, Doctor.
Thanks for the encouragement
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 2/9/2004 7:10 PM (GMT -6) | | All,
Thank you for your responses, though I have some follow-up questions for all and an idea to present. First, Calvinism DOES NOT entail Determinism to the extent that you would like it to. It can be very compatibilistic in nature. Another comment regarding the idea that Calvinism says "God makes the mess"- NO. There is no mess, there is no mistake. God is not cleaning up the mess but spinning all to His glorious wonderous will that is complete and perfect in every aspect.
Jo-anne i like what you said about just crying with them. As we should all do. We shouldn't cram theology down their throat, but we should "mourn with those who mourn", this is the right heart we are to have in coming into this. However us, looking from the outside in without any connection to the family, can attempt to resolve the intellectual problem of evil that is to be addressed. I would also say that more importantly in attempting to answer the question "why did Carlie die" is to direct them to the Savior that we take faith in so that they too may dwell in His riches and feasts. I also think that America needs to realize that death IS NOT the greatest evil in the world. When someone dies it is not like one has just experienced the worst thing that could ever happen. And on a side note, i would never deny the compassion of God, that would be utter foolishness.
*******If you would like to skip to the summary go ahead, but everything in between is my attempt to "prove" or show where I am coming from**********
Now to turn the gears to the "problem" of evil, or as I see it, no problem at all. I don't get why people are always wondering why "bad" things happen as though we deserved something better. After we are concieved, the rest is grace; grace being something that we do not desreve. When "bad" things happen to us, instead of pointing a finger at God and saying, "damn you" or "where were you?" or something along those lines; we should have the mindset that what we truly deserve, is the worst life. We deserve to be born blind, crippled, mute, deaf, orphaned, abondoned, unloved, etc. no where in all of Scripture does God ever say, "You deserve this or that." What a prideful arrogant attitude to believe that when "bad" things happen, God is in some way being unjust and unfair to us. I deserve to die tonight, i deserve to be eaten alive by maneating sharks, but thanks be to God who sustains me with every breath and gives me life and all things, Acts 17.
So if one is willing to accept the first premise, it would follow that we are entilted to nothing. so when something good happens to us we should be shocked, we shouldn't be expecting good things to happen, lest we pervert grace. So we have the idea that God giving us even our very breath is not something that we desreve, and yet how often do we thank God for that? We are to "bow before the Lord God our maker" for no other reason then He is our maker Psalm 95. How much more when He is our sustainer and support, our breath, our life, our grace, our mercy. Yet we often surpress the glory of God and change it into something that is no longer grace but something God owes us, such thinking is easily damnable, Rom 1, Deut 5.
But what if the only thing a non-Christian ever experienced, in a sense was evil. What i mean is that the best thing that can happen to a non-Christian is that the Gospel be preached to them and God opens their hearts and gives them a heart of flesh and removes the heart of stone. That is the greatest thing that a non-Christian can ever experience. But even if they reject such an offer, all they are doing is building up and storing up wrath for themselves for the day of judgment in which their refusal will result in their eternal damnation. I would tend to think therefore that since the greatest thing that can happen is the unregenerate being born again is the greatest thing and since nothing else can regenerate the soul, everything else they experience will help aid them in their eternal damnation. For everytime they are ungrateful for the Grace of God, which almost always, they are sinning, and damining themselves to hell.
If these two ideas can now be agreed upon, then it would follow that the old woman who gets help crossing the street and yet remains ungrateful towards the grace of God, is no better off then the one's who curse God for the evil they experienced in their daughter getting killed. For both surpress the righteousness and grace of God and both are storing up wrath for the final judgment unless we can say with Job, "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord. In all Job said He did not charge God with wrong nor did he sin."
**************************************************
This is a strikingly different idea than perhaps you have heard and in summation, i would say all the non-Christian experiences is evil, storing up wrath for themselves in the end and aiding in hardening their own hearts towards God and all the Christian experiences is the grace of God in all things, even in the death of a beloved family member for the Lord "works for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. For those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified."
I'm finished for now, let me have it and if you have any questions i would be more than happy to answer them.
Blessings,
Now to Him who is able to keep you from falling,
Borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 2/9/2004 7:18 PM (GMT -6) | | John, thank you for that post. That was perhaps the best OV post I have ever read and I believe that it is the best spelled out idea of the way in which the OV sees God's glory in working around what Satan did, even better than anything Dr. Boyd and others have written. Very well said. I would simply respond that though a God of such and idea is in your eyes glorious, I still fail to see how God is "glorious" when Satan thwarts Him or dismantles His plans and forces Him to go to plan B. Rather I see the glory of God in His ability to accomplish all for His name's sake, to glorify His name, and to bring about whatever He so chooses and in saving and redeeming the people He has chosen. But I will not get carried into this unless you so desire.
Blessings,
Word Alone,
Borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 2/9/2004 9:15 PM (GMT -6) | | [quote]Originally posted by borg
John, thank you for that post. That was perhaps the best OV post I have ever read and I believe that it is the best spelled out idea of the way in which the OV sees God's glory in working around what Satan did, even better than anything Dr. Boyd and others have written. Very well said. I would simply respond that though a God of such and idea is in your eyes glorious, I still fail to see how God is "glorious" when Satan thwarts Him or dismantles His plans and forces Him to go to plan B. Rather I see the glory of God in His ability to accomplish all for His name's sake, to glorify His name, and to bring about whatever He so chooses and in saving and redeeming the people He has chosen. But I will not get carried into this unless you so desire.
Blessings,
Word Alone,
Borg
Hello Borg,
I would echo your sentiments about John's reply. Thank you John. What a marvelous reply. I enjoyed it and it is confirming for me. The question of sovereignty is one that is tossed around and misunderstood, often lost in terminology I think. One thing that I discovered with this view of God Borg that I never considered before is the creative sovereignty of God. I believe without question that God's character never changes. He is the same God yesterday, today and forever - but as evidenced throughout scripture as well as in our own experience as believers, God is infinitely wise and creative in how He responds to His creation. I do not believe for an instant that God's plans are thwarted, not His overarching plans for us. But, having just said that, His will is not always accomplished. It is His will that "none should perish" - but they will, because He created us with free will. Lucifer was created with free will as well and was cast out of heaven - like lightening from the throne of grace. He must have been a glorious angel before He revolted. He must have had a tremendous capacity to bless. Now he is the ruler of this world, for a time. If he did not have a choice to rebel and we did not have a choice to accept or reject the Saviour - then free will means nothing and there would not be the capacity to freely love. Here is another thought...Jesus was fully human (fully man) and fully God. He faced temptation in every way as we do. Did this make him less sovereign? Iguess I wonder what everyone's definition of sovereignty is? Did it make him less glorious? He could have failed right? If temptation is really temptation he could have chosen otherwise. What really demonstrates His sovereignty to me is that when faced with every temptation known to man, He was victorious. Hearing the Father and obeying Him was more important to Jesus than anything else. He chose to go to Calvary when He could have chosen otherwise. Looking at Jesus has radically challenged my view of what sovereignty is. The creator of the universe humbled himself, His only crown a crown of thorns. The babe in the manger was as glorious as the Saviour who returns for us. He is unchangeable in character but ever changing in how He responds to us. I believe it was Dr. Boyd who used the phrase "changeable faithfulness" I may be wrong.
I do not believe for a moment, that despite how things appear, that the enemy or his cronies have the "upper hand" We know that a time is coming when he will be defeated once and for all. He is already defeated in principle and one day it will be final - the cosmic battle shall rage no more.
You wrote: "Rather I see the glory of God in His ability to accomplish all for His name's sake, to glorify His name, and to bring about whatever He so chooses and in saving and redeeming the people He has chosen." I agree. I see the glory of God this way as well. He is more than able to accomplish His purposes. He has chosen to offer salvation to all who would accept this gift of grace (John 3:16). The gift is extended to all, but as we know the risk of free will is that all people will not accept it. I am realizing more and more the urgency of prayer. It is our spiritual "say so" as Dr Boyd says. We need to excercise it. We really do affect eternity "choice by choice." That's why we are told to pray, urgently, fervently, persistently and without ceasing.
I really am new in all of this. Thanks for listening and I really am enjoying the thread here. I am passionate about a Father who loves me with so much passion and it is wonderful to explore this with others who are just as earnest in seeking to know Him more.
God bless you Borg. I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts on this, and those of others.
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/9/2004 9:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Borg: First, Calvinism DOES NOT entail Determinism to the extent that you would like it to. It can be very compatibilistic in nature.
Tom: Then you misunderstand Calvin AND theological determinists who are compatibilisits, for both affirm that God unconditionally determines all things; that's ALL THINGS. No doubt about it. Being a compatibilistic determinist doesn’t make you less a determinist than those determinists who are not compatibilists.
Borg: Another comment regarding the idea that Calvinism says "God makes the mess"- NO. There is no mess, there is no mistake.
Tom: Then let’s not mourn with Carlie’s parents. Let’s celebrate! No mess! Yay.
Borg: Jo-anne i like what you said about just crying with them. As we should all do.
Tom: Why cry? For what? There’s no mess. No problem. God has spun his “glorious and wonderous will that is complete in every respect.” Why wouldn’t you encourage Carlie’s parents to praise and thank God for Carlie’s murder? After all, God decreed it for his glory, no? So let's give him glory for it. Carlie died and God won!
Borg: We deserve to be born blind, crippled, mute, deaf, orphaned, abondoned, unloved, etc.
Tom: Speechless. I keep thinking the shock will wear off, but it never does.
Borg: I deserve to die tonight, i deserve to be eaten alive by maneating sharks..
Tom: For sinning, yes. For being conceived and born? No.
Borg: This is a strikingly different idea than perhaps you have heard…
Tom: Not at all. Heard it all before.
Borg: …and in summation, i would say all the non-Christian experiences is evil, storing up wrath for themselves in the end and aiding in hardening their own hearts towards God and all the Christian experiences is the grace of God in all things, even in the death of a beloved family member for the Lord "works for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. For those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified." I'm finished for now, let me have it and if you have any questions i would be more than happy to answer them.
Tom: No questions whatsoever. I only hope those with a different view than yours get to Carlie’s parents first should they begin asking questions about God and Carlie's murder.
Borg: I still fail to see how God is "glorious" when Satan thwarts Him…
Tom: You’d rather have God be responsible?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/9/2004 9:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Jo-Anne: "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh...?" I don't think so and I don't find any comfort in that statement. I think that is what Job sincerely thought until the Father stepped in and described to him the complexity of the cosmos and the forces at play.
Tom: Have we met? You sure sound familiar. 
I agreed that what you're suggesting is possible. Yes.
Just a suggestion. When you hit "reply" to a post, don't keep ALL the post there. Just erase it (or keep the specific part you want to reply to) and post. I't keeps the threads shorter and easier to follow.
Blessings,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 2/10/2004 1:48 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Selah: I wonder about that too. Perhaps it would help if someone could give NT examples where Jesus does this "greater good" train track switchin thing. Are there examples?
Tom: Not that I know of. The only thing that immediately comes to mind as an example of divine compatibilistic involvement is God’s use of Pharaoh and God’s use of Babylon as an instrument of judgment upon Israel. That sort of thing. But the idea of “switching the tracks” seems to make sense if we’re going to say God always does all God can do to maximize love and goodness and minimize evil.
Thanks for your response Tom. I always find it interesting that our main examples are OT ones. It would seem (if this was God's mode of operation) that we would have piles of NT Jesus examples too.
Right now, (in process) I honestly don't know if I would say "God ALWAYS does ALL God CAN do to maximize love ..and minimize evil." The world just doesn't look that way. Rather, I might say "God ALWAYS wants love and goodness to be maximized and evil to be minimized, but He needs other agents to cooperate in order to bring love and goodness about." Maybe in essence that's saying the same thing. I don't know. The problem of evil s**ks.
One thing I do know is that Jesus knew the world wasn't going to be a pretty place for us... In John 16 He says "in this world you'll have much tribulation" and in John 17 He prays for us: 17:12 "While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. 13"But now I come to You; and these things I speak in the world so that they may have My joy made full in themselves. 14"I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 "I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one."
My problem is with the why. Why does it all have to play out? ya know. Why didn't Jesus pray for us to be taken out of the world? What precisely is "All God CAN do"??
peace and love,
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
| 777 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:01 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 |
|
|