 |
| 
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 5/5/2003 7:14 PM (GMT -6) |   |
DLW: Is Big Blue wiser because it can beat any grand chess-master at Chess? No, it just can do an exhaustive search over every single possible contingency in the game of Chess.
Doc: If a PERSON had Big Blues power, we'd say she was wiser than a person who needed a prescript of how an opponent was going to move, or a person who needed to prescribe the opponents every move.
Its just that we don't ordinarily ascribe "wisdom" to artificial intelligence. Machines can only mimic what humans do, and what humans have programmed them to do.
(Oh no, I sense a debate about artificial intelligence coming on)
Blessings
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/6/2003 12:15 AM (GMT -6) | | It’s not just because I can perfectly anticipate Doc’s thoughts before he says them  or because our souls were united before birth , but I gotta go with Doc here. The chess analogy is only an analogy, which means it explains only some things. The things it does explain it explains well. It remains true that in some ways God is not like a chess player.
I thought some of the comments in Beyond the Bounds were Outta Bounds!
BTB: From childhood, we learned that the Bible guides us to think of God with PROPER imagery, for it asks, 'To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him?' (Isa. 40:18 NRSV).
Tom: Well, yeah, but Isaiah is speaking here of fashioning God into an idol. See the immediately following verse which explains (v. 19), “As for an idol, a workman casts it, and a goldsmith overlays it with gold and casts for it silver chains.” That’s the “image” he’s talking about. God is not saying human language cannot be a vehicle for truth about God. But I grant BTB wider point, we should be careful about our analogies. Some analogies are by nature disqualified as candidates for analogies about God. I’m cool with that.
BTB: We learned that some imagery intrinsically draws analogies that lead us to wrong concepts of God, if not idolatry.
Tom: Good point. Metaphors for God never stand alone. They are always brought into dialogue with other biblical metaphors about God. But the authors of BTB don’t do this. They just reject the “chess” analogy because it doesn’t fit “their” concept of God.
BTB: For example, the imagery of God as a chess player intuitively seemed a grotesque caricature of how God relates to his creatures.
Tom: What’s grotesque about it? Why is believing God to be supremely wise, infinitely intelligent and resourceful, and virtuously flexible in relating to us a GROTESQUE caricature of how God relates to us?
BTB: Its repugnance is gone for open theists who claim, God 'anticipates and ingeniously outmaneuvers his opponents' as a master chess player.
Tom: Thank God the repugnance of such a view of God is gone.
BTB: They readily characterize God with categories drawn from our modern therapeutic culture that prizes 'self-esteem' and regards 'vulnerability' as virtuous.
Tom: Guess what borg, EVERY culture characterizes God with categories drawn from their OWN culture. This is exactly what you read when you read the Bible! And this is a GOOD thing. It mustn’t be done in isolation from Christian tradition and biblical exegesis, but it must be done if we’re to speak to God in our language and about God to our generation.
If it’s true that our generation is “therapeutic” (BTB never says what this means, they just throw out the term and assume it’s a “bad” thing to be “therapeutic,” whatever that means), then we MUST find ways to speak about God to this generation in categories they understand (yes, without ignoring biblical language and Church tradition). If I was witnessing to Kasparov you can bet I’d use the chess analogy.
And “self-esteem” OUGHT to be prized, and “vulnerability” in personal relationships of love IS a virtuous thing. THIS IS WHAT WE’RE DEBATING! BTB just assumes that they’re right without arguing their point…again.
Tell me borg:- Do you value personal relationships where one person refuses to be vulnerable?
- Do you think not being vulnerable in personal relationships of love is MORE virtuous than being vulnerable?
- Do you think personal relationships in which one party does not have a healthy self-esteem (view of one’s self) are better than relationships where both parties have a healthy view of themselves?
If personal relationships of love require those involved to “know themselves truthfully” (= self-image) and to be “vulnerable” (= risk getting hurt for the sake of freely chosen love), then what’s the deal here with the authors of BTB?
BTB: Gregory Boyd says, 'It takes a truly self-confident, sovereign God to make himself vulnerable.'
Tom: This is a factual statement. It DOES take a self-confident person to choose to be vulnerable for the sake of intimacy with another. And people who are unable to choose to do so for the sake of intimacy with others ARE weaker and less confident. So, again, borg, what point are the authors of BTB making? Do they want to deny that God is personally intimate with us? Do they deny that the Bible actually describes God entering relationships with us that result in his being grieved, frustrated, surprised, disappointed, broken-hearted, changing his mind, expecting (what does not happen), hoping (for what doesn’t happen)? I think not. They can’t deny it’s THERE. This IS biblical language. The only question is, what does it mean? Can we make sense of the Bible’s descriptions of God expecting, hoping, changing his mind, and grieving on the basis of his either determining all that happens or foreknowing as certain all that happens? I can’t. If you can, let us in on the secret.
BTB: Open theists, however, do not employ their descriptive language as anthrpopoathic (read analogical) portrayals of God, but as descriptive of God as he is in himself, for they transmute figurative portraits of God into glossy pictures.
Tom: borg, it took me a long time to get to this, but here’s what appears to me now to be the truth: “All biblical descriptions of God ‘describe’ God.” Novel thought, eh? All biblical descriptions of God, whether literary metaphors or not, reveal God. They depict some truth about who God really is. In terms of the genre of literature used, descriptions of God may be metaphoric, anthropomorphic, or straightforward claims (like “God is love”). But regardless of the literary device used to describe God, God is described. And when the Bible describes God, God is revealed. It’s that simple.
This doesn’t mean “God is my rock” means God is a physical rock. If it’s a metaphor, it means God is a metaphorical rock. What the metaphor “rock” in this instance reveals about God is that God is “strong and dependable.” It’s a metaphor. Big deal. It still reveals some truth about God AS HE IS. God IS strong. God IS dependable.
So, the argument in BTB that you quote entirely skirts the issue. It is a gross misunderstanding of the issue to say open theists interpret descriptions of God as descriptions of God “as he is” but that the authors of BTB never interpret any descriptions of God as a description of God as he is. They do. What do the authors of BTB do with “God is not a human that he should lie or change his mind”? They do exactly what they’re accusing us of doing, they take it as descriptive of God as he is in himself.
In my view, all biblical God-talk is revelation and reveals/describes God as he is. This is done straightforwardly, or metaphorically, or anthropomorphically. But it’s done.
Tom 
Edited by - TGB on 05/06/2003 05:17:29 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/6/2003 5:43 AM (GMT -6) | | The Chess Analogy, like the D-Day Analogy, still abstracts from the Problem of Ecclesiastical Order, which, now that we have "solved" the problem of evil, is of far more pressing importance in my humble view.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 5/6/2003 12:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey sorry it's taken me awhile to respond. I'm preparing for finals and the like. I must say this conversation took quite the spin while I was gone, I actaully forgot I had posted this, but enjoyed reading the responses, especially Tom's, i must say, wow.
I think I'm willing to put the chess board analogy behind me. Boyd made a good point when he said if you carry the view that everything is known to God, than it doesn't work. i guess that's where i am, and before i can look any further into it, i need to get rid of my biasness.
Tom responding to your post, i first must say i really enjoyed it. unfortuanatly, i don't know if i have a clear answer for what i believe about what you wrote, but i don't necesarily agree with all of it.
i liked what you said about the Isaiah passage, though i might go the extent that our analogies of God as a risk taker, is getting dangerous in my view. you said you would give them the "wider" point, and from my POV i see this as happening within the OV. it seems as though we've fashioned a God for the 21st century.
I guess one thing i wanted to really question is where you talked about defining God within our generation.
Tom: "Guess what borg, EVERY culture characterizes God with categories drawn from their OWN culture."
I guess this caught me off guard, in that it made me think, is it ok to do this? today there are many Reformed Theologians who argue against such a belief, as i understand them, in saying that it's not good to do this when it comes to God. we need to view Him as the same. what i'm getting at, is that it seems the whole "risk-taking" love relationship is a more contemporary thought. I know this has been debated, and nto to my benefit, i haven't really read much about it, but in my innate thoughts of God, i guess i don't see Him as a risk taker.
you asked me those three questions. i would like to respond to them, however, while reading through them, i was wondering what i would have said 100 or 500 years ago. whether or not my ideas of friendship and divine friendship could be seen on the same plane.
1. I guess i could find myself valuing friendships where one person isn't vulernable. now maybe my definition of vulernable is different from yours, but i valued my dad's friendship as a child, and yet i don't think i would go to the idea that he was vulnerable with me. instead we had a friendship where he definatly pursued a relationship with me that was loving and friendly, where i would be vulnerable with him, but he was there to guide me and help me, not to necesarily become vulnerable to me. he was wiser, older, and someone i looked up to. taken in a larger picture of a God to human relationship, i guess i could see this work.
2. i think i could say this is true also. God is not only pursuing a "love" relationship with us. if this was the sole relationship that God was pursuing, than yeah, i could see God becoming vulnerable and that perhaps that is more virtuos. But God is also pursuing a relationship of savior, judge, mediator, kingly, comforter, priest, etc, and in some of these relationships i don't think being vulernalbe is what is called for. sometimes God shouldn't be vulnerable with us to fulfill other relationships. as stated, i think this question stems solely from a God who is only pursuing a love relationship, but this is not the case.
3. am i to conclude that this low self esteem you are perhaps talking about is self-abasement, total depravity, and the like? i guess i would question what you mean by healthy. is it healthy of us to know our place when it comes to God, YES! Job says, "My ears had heard of you butnow my eyes have seen you. Therefore I DESPISE myself and repent in dust and ashes." Paul calls himself the worst of all sinners. we are told in the Bible that no one does good, no not one, Romans 3:10. David repents and thinks low of himself after his affair with Bathsheeba. and i would say that these such views are healthy for us. it's good to have a view of ourselves in light of God as nothing. but the joy in it, is that He's given us Christ, and if Christ is in us, than we are viewed as something! with this thought, it is all the more praiseworthy to give God all honor and to "despise" ourselves in His sight. As you know, the Bible tells us to humble ourselves in the sight of the Lord. we are told not to think more highly of ourselves than we ought. so if this is what you meant by question 3, than yes, it is healthy of us to have a "low self-esteem" though i don't know if i would use such terminology. perhaps a better phrase, a humble attitude.
about the whole BTB and their description of God and the metaphors and what not. i think i find it my place to speak in defense of your claim that they do the exact same things they are accusing OTists of doing. one could possibly assume this, however, just assume with me that they are right, whether you truly agree or not, than wouldn't your view of the OTists view be that they have inturpruted the scriptures, that you (believing them, as them wrong? and vise versa. therefore, i think that your own argument is self-defeating in that you accuse them of doing the same thing you are doing, all because each group thinks they are right. i don't know if that made sense, but i view them as saying OTists are wrong because they don't agree and vise versa.
going alone with that, assuming that BTB views are correct, than there must be something wrong with the arguments that the OTists use to explain how God changes His mind, regretts things, and the like. this is best explained by Reformed Theologians as anthropomorphisms. carrying a Biblical view of God as the Reformers do, there has to be an explanation for the way that these verses depict God as changing, whether it be anthros, compatabilism, or what not. same with the open view in that if you carry their belifs, there has to be some way to explain away the verses that talk about God as not changing His mind, about God setting Himself apart from idols by declaring that they say what is to come in the future, and the same basic approach is taken.
well i hope this makes sense. let me know what you think. i did enjoy your last post.
grace and peace,
borg
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/6/2003 12:33 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
1. I guess i could find myself valuing friendships where one person isn't vulernable. now maybe my definition of vulernable is different from yours, but i valued my dad's friendship as a child, and yet i don't think i would go to the idea that he was vulnerable with me. instead we had a friendship where he definatly pursued a relationship with me that was loving and friendly, where i would be vulnerable with him, but he was there to guide me and help me, not to necesarily become vulnerable to me. he was wiser, older, and someone i looked up to. taken in a larger picture of a God to human relationship, i guess i could see this work.
DLW:Did your dad accompany you on your first date? If not, apparently he was willing to make himself vulnerable to being hurt by you.
quote:
3. am i to conclude that this low self esteem you are perhaps talking about is self-abasement, total depravity, and the like? i guess i would question what you mean by healthy. is it healthy of us to know our place when it comes to God, YES! Job says, "My ears had heard of you butnow my eyes have seen you. Therefore I DESPISE myself and repent in dust and ashes." Paul calls himself the worst of all sinners. we are told in the Bible that no one does good, no not one, Romans 3:10. David repents and thinks low of himself after his affair with Bathsheeba. and i would say that these such views are healthy for us. it's good to have a view of ourselves in light of God as nothing. but the joy in it, is that He's given us Christ, and if Christ is in us, than we are viewed as something! with this thought, it is all the more praiseworthy to give God all honor and to "despise" ourselves in His sight. As you know, the Bible tells us to humble ourselves in the sight of the Lord. we are told not to think more highly of ourselves than we ought. so if this is what you meant by question 3, than yes, it is healthy of us to have a "low self-esteem" though i don't know if i would use such terminology. perhaps a better phrase, a humble attitude.
DLW:Sinc when has the issue of contention over OVT been about whether or not we are humble? As I see it, the OV permits us to put the fault for the failings of historical Christianity where they belong with Christian leadership. The fact we have real freedom doesn't exalt us in anyways. We must be humble, acknowledge our fallibility and seek to prevent us from repeating history again.
quote:
about the whole BTB and their description of God and the metaphors and what not. i think i find it my place to speak in defense of your claim that they do the exact same things they are accusing OTists of doing. one could possibly assume this, however, just assume with me that they are right, whether you truly agree or not, than wouldn't your view of the OTists view be that they have inturpruted the scriptures, that you (believing them, as them wrong? and vise versa.
A lot of the heat between OVT and Calvinists/Arminists comes over how time is conceived of. One can use either way to interpret scripture to support itself. Although, the notion of God being outside of time would have been quite foreign to the recorders of the OT.
just my two cents,
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 5/6/2003 1:48 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW i appreciate the response. though my answer to #1 perhaps better deserve a better explanation.
when i was little i my father sought this sort of relationship with me. his ways were more mature, or in a way, higher, than mine. i was dependent on him to guide me and protect me and to also provide for me in every aspect of my life. the instance you are talking about though, is a time when i'm older, more mature, more at a level with my dad. in this case, i am not dependent on him to provide for me, care for me, sustain me, all that jazz. now i have a freedom that i didn't have when i was little. if this is compared to my relationship with God, well i'll never "mature" enough to grown independent of Him. I'll never move away from Him needing to sustain me, i'll never have a different kind of relationship with Him as i do with my father, in that i become more of his equal, it doesn't work like this with God. and true, as i get older, my dad desires a different sort of relationship with me than when i was little. he knows that i no longer need him to care for me, comfort me, sustain me, all that jazz. that's not so with God. God doesn't desire a different relationship with us as we get older, at least i don't see that throughout scripture.
on #2 i apologize if it came across as though OTists don't see a need for humility, that wasn't my point. my point is that when Tom asked the question about the low self-esteem, i was saying i don't view it as a low self-esteem, rather i viewed it as an act of humility. in no way did i mean to imply that OVists need to be humble, or that they lack it. does that make sense?
and #3 i don't know what you mean by the idea of God being out of time woudl be foreign to the OT writers. to me, and the way that i understand it, they carried the view that God was out of time. are you implying the idea hat God descended upon them often (burning bush, exodus, mt. sinai) and all that jazz? if that's what you mean, i think it's pretty weak to say based on the fact that God revealed Himself in different forms doesn't mean that He is out of time. another idea that was brought up in Beyond the Bounds, was the fact that the Rabbis of the ancient world, believed that God was out side of time. they didn't believe that God was restricted under time and the like. so i guess from wherever you drew that conclusion, i'm not quite clear on it.
thanks for responding, good hearing something about my post.
grace and peace,
borg
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/6/2003 4:54 PM (GMT -6) | | I would say that my understanding of vulnerability implies a weakness - someone who is vulnerable is not perfect. Someone who is vulnerable is at the mercy of someone who is not. That's one reason why people get used in romantic relationships - one party makes themselves more vulnerable than the other. If God is vulnerable, isn't he then at the mercy of others?
I don't know where this notion that equality is necessary in the relationship between humans and God came from. That we can't really love God unless we are equal to him, or at least close. God is not our "best buddy". God doesn't need us. We need him! Right? If GOd needs our love, or if he needs anything whatsoever, then he is not perfect.
If God regrets things he's done along the way in the literal sense, then he is learning, or attaining, knowledge, as He goes along. This is not perfection.
I guess this is one of the key points between the OV and the classical theism view. I'm not saying that the OV's are less humble than anyone else - I don't think that at all . I just object to the idea that God needs people for anything. Or that he is desperate for us to choose him. That is a pathetic being who has no control over his own creation. Who needs an equal relationship with us for some reason. A needy God begging for us to choose him.
Elsewhere in this forum, OV'ers are arguing that human beings are gratuitous creatures. If so, then why the heck would God need these gratuitous creatures, who don't even need to be here at all, to choose to enter into some type of equal buddy relationship with God?
Please don't get me wrong- I'm not passing judgment at all> I don't believe any of us can say we know the exact nature of God.
Maybe there is a basic level of difference here - whereby classical theism, and especially Calvinism, views God as being king-like, ruling over his creation, whereas OV'ers are viewing God as wanting to enter into a "relationship" with us, as in the 21st century definition of relationship. Where there can't be a real relationship unless both parties are equally free in their decisions.
I don't know.
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/6/2003 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | One more thing, as a personal note, I have always struggled with the idea of Christ (God) standing outside the door of our "hearts' knocking and hoping we will answer and let him in. That's weak and impotent. That's not the kind of God I want to worship! Am I completely off the wall here?
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/6/2003 6:34 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
ReasonableDoubt
One more thing, as a personal note, I have always struggled with the idea of Christ (God) standing outside the door of our "hearts' knocking and hoping we will answer and let him in. That's weak and impotent. That's not the kind of God I want to worship! Am I completely off the wall here?
Reminded me of:
1 Corinthians 1
26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things -- and the things that are not -- to nullify the things that are,
and, by Evdokimov in "In the World, Of the Church"...
quote:
Hell is nothing else but separation of man from God, his autonomy excluding him from the place where God is present.
The ability to refuse God is the pinnacle of human freedom. Yet it is precisely God, who is limitless Love, who desires that it be this way.
God cannot force an atheist to love him. We dare to say that to do this would be the hell of his divine love. If Judas escaped into the night of solitude (Jn 13:26-30), it was because Satan had entered into him. But Judas carried in his hand an awesome mystery, the morsel of bread from the Lord's Supper.4 Thus hell holds in its very heart a fragment of light, thus comes true the saying: "The light shone in the darkness." Jesus' action of giving even Judas the bread of life reveals the final mystery of the Church. She is the hand of Jesus offering his body and blood. The appeal is addressed to all, since all are within the power of the Prince of this world. The light does not dissipate the darkness but the darkness has no hold over the invincible light. We are all ensnared in the ultimate tension of divine love. God is not "impassible," that is, without passion, suffering. The Book of Daniel49 tells of the three young men cast into the fiery furnace. The king perceived the mysterious presence of a fourth: "I see four men who walk in the fire without being burned and the fourth has the likeness of the Son of God."
Thus we find the necessity of hell, which comes from human freedom. With respect to God, who will not force anyone to love him, hell witnesses to our freedom from loving him. This brings hell into being, for our freedom can always say, "May your will not be done" and even God does not have control over this statement. Emotionally, we would be shaken in our understanding of God if he did not love his creature with such abandon that he would not punish his child for such a cruel separation. It also would be most disturbing if God did not save his beloved without touching or destroying his freedom. The Father who sends his Son knows that even hell is his domain and that "the gate of death" is transformed into the "gate of life." Even the despair of hell is wounded by the hope it already contains, and the Church teaches the Christian not to despair.
Weak and impotent it may be, with knocks preceeding our answering and letting him in. But that is true. It is chosen weakness. Christ's "emptying Himself" did not at all change his divinity. But Christ shared the same divine will as the Father, and in his humanity he willed to follow, even to death on the cross. Such weakness turned the whole universe upsidedown. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/7/2003 3:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Gina-
RD: I would say that my understanding of vulnerability implies a weakness - someone who is vulnerable is not perfect. Someone who is vulnerable is at the mercy of someone who is not. That's one reason why people get used in romantic relationships - one party makes themselves more vulnerable than the other. If God is vulnerable, isn't he then at the mercy of others?
Tom: Hmmm. Vulnerability certainly can be a weakness. For example, two opposing generals and their armies meet on the battlefield. One general discerns a particular weakness in the troop movement of the other army. This weakness exposes the army, making it vulnerable to attack and defeat. Or (to use the chess analogy again!) two chess master go head to head. They study each other looking for weaknesses that make the opponent vulnerable to attack and defeat. This sort of vulnerability is a weakness because—here it is!—it is not required of the persons involved by their respective PURPOSES. The general’s purpose in battle does not require this particular vulnerability. Neither is it freely chosen. Same deal with the weaker chess player.
What about God? If your relationship with God is to be a personal relationship of love, if this is at all in God’s plans for you, then it must be true you and God both have the necessary freedom to respond to one another. And if love is the goal, then risk is the price. And risk means being vulnerable. But this is unlike the sort of weakness you imagine in your post. Vulnerability in this case is both necessary and freely chosen. You can say no to God. You can choose not to love him. And this will break his heart. He will grieve. Your rejection of him cause him to suffer. God makes himself vulnerable to THIS suffering because it is the required price tag of your being able to say “I love and worship you,” and in so doing bring joy to his heart. God has given you this power. For him to expose himself to being hurt by you doesn’t amount to some metaphysical weakness of God. It’s simply the price God has to pay to hear you choose to say “I love you.”
The same vulnerability is required and freely chosen by us in relationships of love with other humans. We freely choose to expose ourselves to others because we know this is required of personal relationships of intimacy and love. There IS no other way. Yes, we get hurt. Yes, others betray us and wound us. But we go into it knowing this might happen. But there is no risk of our being betrayed and hurt by God. In inviting us into a personal relationship of love with himself, God is the one who takes ALL the risk because though he will never betray us, we often betray him.
This is love. This is strength.
RD: I don't know where this notion that equality is necessary in the relationship between humans and God came from. That we can't really love God unless we are equal to him, or at least close.
Tom: Not equality! Nobody has said this.
RD: God is not our "best buddy". God doesn't need us. We need him! Right?
Tom: Right. But God does WANT us. How? He wants us to love him, to worship him, to be filled with his fullness, to parade his love to the world, to dance with him. He doesn’t NEED to want us in this way. He freely CHOOSES to want us in this way. Are you going to tell God “You are not free to want us in this way?” or “You’re a weak and less than omnipotent God if you want us in this way?” Hopefully not.
So now the question is: If God wants us in this way, what else must be true (about us, about God, about our relationship)?
RD: If God needs our love, or if he needs anything whatsoever, then he is not perfect.
Tom: I totally agree. God doesn’t need our love. But he does WANT our love. And if it’s our LOVE God wants, then there’s a price tag in it even for God.
RD: If God regrets things he's done along the way in the literal sense, then he is learning, or attaining, knowledge, as He goes along.
Tom: Not exactly. He is “experiencing” something he has not experienced before. But this is true of God even if God never regrets. In creating the world God came into a relationship he was not in previously. He “came to” experience what it was like to be in relationship to Creation. Before being incarnate, God did not know what it was like to “experience” being incarnate. It is no imperfection for God NOT to know what experiencing creation or incarnation is like before creating or incarnating. God does have new experiences. And whatever knowledge is gained from these experiences, he gains. But it’s no weakness on his part to “gain” such knowledge.
Some open theists (Doc for example) argue that God does “learn.” But they never simply say “God learns” and leave it at that. You’ve got to spend so much time qualifying what you mean that I don’t think it’s worth saying. I prefer to avoid saying God “learns” (because I define “learning” as “moving from a state of ignorance about something to a state of knowing that something,” and I don’t think God does this), though I argue that his knowledge is constantly changing as the world changes. Wouldn’t you agree? If the world is changing, and the changes are real, and if God is omniscient, then wouldn’t God keep perfect track of the changes? How is this different than saying “God’s knowledge is constantly changing”?
RD: I just object to the idea that God needs people for anything.
Tom: No problem. God didn’t need to create us and doesn’t need us to love him. Would you grant that God is free to WANT us to love him? Or would you deny God this freedom?
RD: Or that he is desperate for us to choose him. That is a pathetic being who has no control over his own creation.
Tom: Are you pathetic if you want your husband to love you? Are you pathetic if you want your children to love you? Don’t we rather feel that people who “control” other people are the pathetic ones? Why is God pathetic for wanting us to love him? Why is pathetic if he was willing to create the sort of world in which our loving each other was possible?
RD: Who needs an equal relationship with us for some reason. A needy God begging for us to choose him.
Tom: How about a God who doesn’t need us at all but who freely chooses to want us to love him and does everything he can to provide us every opportunity to encourage us to make the choice to love him?
RD: …why the heck would God need these gratuitous creatures, who don't even need to be here at all, to choose to enter into some type of equal buddy relationship with God?
Tom: One: We don’t NEED to be here. Two: I simply don’t know what you mean by “equal buddy relationship.” You toss this out distastefully. I’m talking about a personal relationship of mutual love. I can only assume that you categorically deny that God is capable of entering into such a relationship with us. Now THERE’S a weak God unworthy of worship.
RD: …whereas OV'ers are viewing God as wanting to enter into a "relationship" with us, as in the 21st century definition of relationship. Where there can't be a real relationship unless both parties are equally free in their decisions.
Tom: There’s nothing 21st centuryISH about the belief that “personal relationships of love” have requirements. They either do or they don’t. If you know of a personal relationship of love in which one party exhaustively and unconditionally controls the choices of the second party, let me know. Otherwise, you’ll need to simply come to terms with the reality of personal relationships and the metaphysical price tag of love.
RD: One more thing, as a personal note, I have always struggled with the idea of Christ (God) standing outside the door of our "hearts' knocking and hoping we will answer and let him in.
Tom: What would you prefer? A God who breaks the door in and ties us up? The Bible clearly portrays God as longing for us, searching for us, hoping we come to him, waiting patiently for us, pursuing us. I’m honestly at a lost for words to explain the belief that this kind of loving is weak and silly. I don’t know what to say? What is weak about a love that longs for, waits for, hopes (1 Cor. 13 says love “hopes”!) for, and pursues us?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/7/2003 4:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tom- I definitely will reply when I have more time, but just wanted to say, will you at least concede then that God must be free to reject us as well?
YOu're saying that we decide whether to accept God. And that we are free to reject him as well, b/c he doesn't want to force us against our will. By the same token then God must be free to decide whether he wants to enter a relationship w/ a given person as well. After all we don't want to force God to have to take us against his will, right? :)
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/7/2003 5:52 AM (GMT -6) | | RD: ...will you at least concede then that God must be free to reject us as well? You're saying that we decide whether to accept God. And that we are free to reject him as well, b/c he doesn't want to force us against our will. By the same token then God must be free to decide whether he wants to enter a relationship w/ a given person as well.
Tom: Yes. You're right. God's decision to enter into relationships must be a free one. And I think it is, along with other decisions, like the decision to create. That was a free decision. The decision to create a world in which love was possible was a free decision. You're quite right.
But...(you knew this was coming right?)...
Once a particular decision is made by God, God sticks to it. He's not (like us) fickle and less than committed. Once the decision to create a world in which love is possible, one in which we are given freedom to choose, we must believe God covenants, or contracts, with himself and with Creation (if we wanna describe it this way) to stick to the rules (to pay the price tag) of the world as he created it.
So, yes, God was free not to create us with the free will necessary for our choosing to love him. But once he granted us this free will for this purpose, God cannot refuse to pay the metaphysical price entailed by such a relationship (not because of some law outside himself that compells his compliance, but because he never acts out of character, he always acts in faithfulness to his character) and continue to call it a "personal relationship of love." Nor can WE coherently claim that God is relating to us in such a personal way while avoiding the price tag involved in such a relationship.
So, if you're asking, Can God betray us (since we'er free to betray others)? I'd say no. Our relationship with God is personal and loving. But we are not God. We're finite and sinful. God is not. He doesn't need to be capable of betraying our love for him (as we are capable of betraying him) in order for the relationship to be a personal one. In other words, God's not LESS than personal and loving for being incapable of betraying us, for being perfectly trustworthy! WE are less than fully "personal" on this account. God's more personal than we are.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/7/2003 8:11 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB - I think the existence of argument proves determinism - i am not convinced by what you say, and you are not convinced by what I say. We are both influenced by not only our genes, but our upbringing, our intellect, our experience - that has made us take the side which we take. :)
Here's a quote from a theologian that sums up what I hear your position is:
"He who comes to God in prayer, comes not in a spirit of self-assertion, but in a spirit of trustful dependence. No one ever addressed God in prayer thus: "0 God, thou knowest that I am the architect of my own fortunes and the determiner of my own destiny. Thou mayest indeed do something to help me in the securing of my purposes after I have determined upon them. But my heart is my own, and thou canst not intrude into it; my will is my own, and thou canst not bend it. When I wish thy aid, I will call on thee for it. Meanwhile, thou must await my pleasure." "
Now to reply:
1. 'Personal relationship of love." You see this as the prime reason for God's existence- that he wants a personal relationship with us. Again this is my differing view - the God that I see in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, created us to worship him in reverence and awe. We are to glorify him. Glorification need not be from someone who can turn him away. Glorification is done in gratitude to God for our very existence, for him saving us from sin. In fact the bible teaches that at some point, every knee shall bow to Him. I'm assuming that will happen whether we want to or not. God will rule in the New Jerusalem - as David ruled in the OT.
B/c Christ came with a seemingly different message of love rather than the judgment presented more strongly in the OT, a lot of people think of it as Jesus is my best friend. I am offended by that, b/c the creature can't be the best pal of the Creator. There is an explicit power differential there.
2. "God wants us to dance with Him" - presumably no dance partner wants to force another person to dance, I'll grant you that. My point is not that GOd would be a weak and lesser God if he chose to do that. My point is he is not at our mercy. If he decides to let us go our own way, that is his will. If he decides he wants to send his spirit - irresistable grace - He can do that. I feel as though you are putting God in a box: he HAS to act this way. He HAS to wait for each person to decide what they will do.
3. 'Control." - of course, you don't want your husband to stay with you out of control, or your children to obey you b/c you control them. But, if you believe traditional christian teaching, you must admit that God controls the end judgment. At that point it's too late. A person may say, "Hey wait a sec. What kind of choice is this? I am going to hell now b/c I believed the wrong thing?" I've tried to make this point before. The choice is not- follow me, and I'll respect your choice to not do so. No, the choice is, follow me, and if you don't you'll burn in hell. Christians try to get around this by either forgoing the doctrine of hell altogether, or sometimes saying, people choose hell. I don't think anyone would choose hell if they knew that was where they were going for sure.
4. "analogy" - I just don't see how these analogies you make obtain- you're talking about how "a relationship of coercion and control" cannot be really loving. Of course not. But I am not saying that's what the relationship w/ God is. I view it more as God being so much higher than us. Coercion and control in a relationship implies that both parties are relatively equal, b/c they can recognize that the power differential in not proportionate to what it should be between humans. There are loving relationships that don't require free will of both parties. For example, I challenge anyone to say I do not completely love my pets- as strongly as most other people in my life. That is sincere. These pets don't have free will. But I know they love me. There is a relationship there.
What about someone w/ a low IQ or mental defect ? Their parents love them just as much as there "ablebodied" children. There is a loving relationship there.
I see God as so much higher than us - I don't think i could even live up to an equal relationship w/ God. Really, what do I have to contribute to the ALmighty God? The only reason he wants me is through grace. Not b/c of anything i've done.
5. "God's knowledge changing" - I absolutely reject that idea. God knows all, I believe he knows the future even though no one on this board does. God is immutable. If anyone tries to argue for absolute truth they must concede this. If truth is unchanging from generation to generation, culture to culture, then certainly God is, b/c God is truth. If God is evolving from a tribal god (OT) to a personal god (modern times) - there is a progression and betterment. Change for the better implies that the previous state was not adequate. Therefore, not perfect.
Anyway, gotta go for now.
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 5/7/2003 9:04 AM (GMT -6) | | RD:quote:
Again this is my differing view - the God that I see in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, created us to worship him in reverence and awe.
Genesis 3:8 "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." "
In the garden in the cool of the day... doesn't sound like a relationship of reverence and awe to me. The God that created, created to share His glory, not add to it. God is revealed in the OT to fallen man, not at all what God had in mind.
What difference does Christ make?
peace and love, don
---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/7/2003 9:31 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW- your condescending attitude is amazing. You'll note the existence of the ":)", which means, I am joking.
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/7/2003 9:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Might be don-
ALthough I don't believe in prooftexting, here's a verse that supports me: Isaiah 43:7 "everyone who is called by my name,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made."
I guess I don't understand your point anyway.
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/7/2003 11:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey- no problem. How do you remove your posts? I would like to do that too.
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/7/2003 11:47 AM (GMT -6) | | The 5th icon on the posts you posted has a garbage can symbol with it. Click on that.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/7/2003 1:26 PM (GMT -6) | | RD-
I replied on my house machine but then the modem died. So I'll have to try to get my reponse over onto my laptop tomorrow. Sheesh.
I'll let that response be my last. I've been hogging things! Besides, you're right. Determinism is right, and God determined that I be an open theist. Everybody's happy! You get to be right about God determining everything in the universe and I get to be an open theist!
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/7/2003 1:30 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
RD-
I replied on my house machine but then the modem died. So I'll have to try to get my reponse over onto my laptop tomorrow. Sheesh.
I'll let that response be my last. I've been hogging things! Besides, you're right. Determinism is right, and God determined that I be an open theist. Everybody's happy! You get to be right about God determining everything in the universe and I get to be an open theist!
Tom
No Tom, you rock! No wonder they banished you to Lebanon...
I was only good enough to get sent to Mexico.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/7/2003 10:20 PM (GMT -6) | | RD: I think the existence of argument proves determinism.
Tom: This is SO not true. How does the fact that we’re debating at all prove determinism?
RD: i am not convinced by what you say, and you are not convinced by what I say. We are both influenced by not only our genes, but our upbringing, our intellect, our experience - that has made us take the side which we take. :)
Tom: Does the smiley face mean you’re joking, or is this the substance of your argument that the existence of argument proves determinism?
Of course we’re influenced by all the things you mention. A libertarian free choice is not a choice made in the absence of all influences. It’s a choice which might have been other than it was given the same influences. Given all the influences in your life up to the moment you wrote your post, you might have capitalized your “i” instead of making it a small case “i”.
Influences don’t determine our views, they only inform and influence. WE determine our views. And WE are more than our influences. But, hey, we’re never finished with being influenced in the formation of our views. We’re still influenced by each other! If you didn’t believe this I don’t suppose you would have returned to the site (which I’m glad you did). So if our ongoing experience with others influences us just like our upbringing experience with others influenced us in the past, then we may change our views. Depends on what the influences are eh?
RD: Here's a quote from a theologian that sums up what I hear your position is: "He who comes to God in prayer, comes not in a spirit of self-assertion, but in a spirit of trustful dependence. No one ever addressed God in prayer thus: "0 God, thou knowest that I am the architect of my own fortunes and the determiner of my own destiny. Thou mayest indeed do something to help me in the securing of my purposes after I have determined upon them. But my heart is my own, and thou canst not intrude into it; my will is my own, and thou canst not bend it. When I wish thy aid, I will call on thee for it. Meanwhile, thou must await my pleasure." "
Tom: Not even close. Such silliness isn’t worthy of the title “prayer” in my opinion. If you’re interested in caricatures, RD, I could suggest a prayer which seems to me to sum up your position:
“Oh Unmovable God of Control! It’s such a comfort to know that you unconditionally predetermine the words I now speak, along with everything else that’s happening in the world. Even when I don’t pray, you determine that too! What an awesome God. You always get what you want. The world runs like a finely tuned watch, Lord. You’re the author and we’re just actors in your novel acting out our predetermined scripts. Whatever path my life takes, I know you planned each detail and that even if I wind up in hell, that’s your good pleasure and you get glory from that too.”
I don’t think you pray like that. Actually, I often pray like this:
“Father, thank you for inviting me to be a part of what you’re doing in the world. It’s an awesome mystery that I’ll never completely understand, but your Word invites me to present my requests with thanksgiving and to intercede for the nations and to believe that I can make a difference. I don’t want to miss an opportunity to be used by you in prayer that impacts the world if even in a small way. So grant me insight, Lord, into the needs that surround me. Help me understand the needs of my generation so I can pray intelligently and in sync with your purposes. Give me your heart for people and direct me as make myself available to you now.”
RD: 1. 'Personal relationship of love." You see this as the prime reason for God's existence…
Tom: Actually, no, I don’t. I offered not a single word as a reason for why GOD exists. I don’t believe there are any such reasons. What I offered were what I thought were reasons why WE exist.
RD: The God that I see in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, created us to worship him in reverence and awe.
Tom: Is God interested in our choosing to worship him?
RD: We are to glorify him.
Tom: Does everybody glorify God? No. Is glorifying God a choice we are to make? Is it a choice which all the influences of our lives “determine” that we make, or is it true that people are to glorify God regardless of the adverse influences in their lives? Who is responsible for my worshipping God? God or I?
Is God more glorified by unconditionally pre-programmed worship than by PERSONS who worship out of the overflow of a personal experience with God? See, Gina, you’re driving the wedge here between “relating personally in love” to God and “worshipping God in reverence and awe.” You think the latter can be performed without the former. I don’t. The less we know his love and love him, the less we worship.
RD: Glorification need not be from someone who can turn him away.
Tom: Then worship is not a choice. And if it’s not a choice, is it even worship?
RD: …a lot of people think of it as Jesus is my best friend. I am offended by that, b/c the creature can't be the best pal of the Creator. There is an explicit power differential there.
Tom: Let me ask you a question, Gina. When Jesus was here on earth, do you think the disciples considered Jesus theier best friend? Do you think it was even possible for any of them, say John the “beloved,” to consider Jesus his best friend? Think they laughed together? Cried together? Shared secrets? Think they wrestled in the grass ever? Ever dunked each other’s heads in the Mediterranean while swimming together? I’d certainly answer yes to all these. If you asked the disciples, I’m certain each of them would happily admit to enjoying Jesus’ friendship and love in ways more intimate than with any other person in their life.
Why should this be essentially different today? We may not be able to wrestle him in the grass, but we take him everywhere we go and celebrate his life and presence in every activity we engage in, knowing that he rejoices to see us fulfilled in him. We share our secrets with him as well as rejoice and cry with him over what he rejoices and cries about.
Sorry. Jesus IS my best friend. He knows me better, loves me more, and has more invested in me than any other person. He died for me. I love him more and have more invested in my relationship with him than any other person in my life. I tell him everything, love to be with him, am grieved when my sin temporarily interrupts our fellowship, and love to do what pleases him. I’m wild crazy in love with God.
Know what blows me away, Gina? This: God would rather spend five minutes with me in honest conversation than he would create a galaxy of stars. I’m the treasure God seeks. I’m what interests him; so much so that he suffered for me. The prophets say he “sings and rejoices over his people with joy” and jealously protects them from evil. He’s crazy mad in love with me. There’s nobody that loves me more and nobody I love more.
IF (note the IF) you don’t feel this way about God or have difficulty believing God wants to be intimate on a personal level with you (MORE intimate than with any other person), then I’d like to pray you break through to it. Really I would. I don’t know what else to say. If you wouldn’t call such a relationship PERSONAL and INTIMATE, that’s OK. You don’t have to relate to God this way if it makes you uncomfortable. But I imagine God would love to see you as comfortable as possible being as intimate as possible with him. You don’t even have to be an open theist to believe this!
RD: 2. "God wants us to dance with Him" - presumably no dance partner wants to force another person to dance, I'll grant you that. My point is not that God would be a weak and lesser God if he chose to do that.
Tom: Metaphor…hello! It’s just a metaphor for intimacy. Then don’t dance with him. Just watch the rest of us and God dance. Maybe you’ll eventually get up the courage to follow God’s lead and take a spin. It’s what pleases and glorifies him most. And I know you’re into glorifying him!
RD: 3. 'Control." - of course, you don't want your husband to stay with you out of control, or your children to obey you b/c you control them.
Tom: Don’t change my words, Gina. I said “LOVE.” Say it: L-O-V-E. I’m not talking about your husband “staying with” you or your kids “obeying” your commands. I’m talking about them L-O-V-I-N-G you. You admit, then, that one cannot “control” another person into loving them. But this is exactly how you approach relating to God. You understand the entire relationship in terms of “control.” If God’s not “controlling” us, he’s not God.
Can I ask a personal question, Gina? When you worship God, do you ever just tell God, maybe over and over again, “I love you”? Sorry to pry. It’s not my right. But I would be interested in knowing if you don’t mind sharing.
RD: But, if you believe traditional christian teaching, you must admit that God controls the end judgment.
Tom: No problem. God defines the end judgment. He alone determines what the consequences are to be for our freely choosing to love him and our freely choosing to reject him. We are not free to choose as we wish and avoid facing the consequences. What God does not determine is whether we choose to love and obey him or whether we choose to reject him. He offers the choices (which we cannot avoid making: to love God or not) and determines the consequences of each choice (spend eternity with God or not) but WE MAKE THE CHOICE. Our freedom extends to THIS end and stops. To be sure, a lot of influences are at work constantly, some good and some bad, but in the end WE, not our influences, resolve ourselves in love for or rejection of God and WE, not our influences, will face the consequences.
RD: 4. "analogy" - I just don't see how these analogies you make obtain - you're talking about how "a relationship of coercion and control" cannot be really loving. Of course not. But I am not saying that's what the relationship w/ God is.
Tom: Then what ARE you saying? You appear to view God as capable only of relating to the world in deterministic ways, period. If you admit that our loving God is NOT within God’s control to determine, then we agree. Do we agree?
RD: There are loving relationships that don't require free will of both parties. For example, I challenge anyone to say I do not completely love my pets - as strongly as most other people in my life.
Tom: I’ll take that challenge. I’m sure it comes as a great comfort those persons you love to know that you love them as much as you do your pets, but unfortunately, Gina, your relationship with your pets cannot be a “personal” one. A “personal” relationship is by definition a relationship between persons. Novel thought, eh? And since dogs, cats, and fish are not persons made in the image of God like YOU are, you cannot enter into mutually loving and personal relations with them. I don’t think your pets will be disappointed to discover this.
Therefore, you cannot possibly know that your pets “know you love them” in a personal way. How would you demonstrate THEIR knowledge of such a thing? Tailing wagging? Purring at your feet?
Only persons created in the image of God have the God-given attributes of personhood. Your pets don’t possess these attributes. Their not “wired” for “personal relationships” in which morally responsible choices are made. Your pets know you supply their needs and make life comfortable for them. That’s about it.
Let me ask, do you believe your feelings for you pets are no different than their feelings are for you? I mean, do you believe your feelings for your pets are, like your pets’ feelings for you, void of free will, nothing more than pure instinct? I’ll assume you do see a difference and that you do believe that though your pets don’t have free will, YOU do. So, where’s this leave you in relating personally to God? Are you suggesting that your relationship to your pets is analogous to your relationship to God, that you relate to God as your pets relate to you (with as much free will as dogs have)?
RD: What about someone w/ a low IQ or mental defect? Their parents love them just as much as there "ablebodied" children. There is a loving relationship there.
Tom: First of all, our handicapped children are “persons” made in the image of God. Our pets are not. Secondly, though we parents love our mentally handicapped children and relatives (as I do) as much as we do our able-bodied children (and siblings), our relationship with mentally handicapped children will, because of the limitations of such handicaps, not be able to reach its God-given potential in terms of “mutuality.” That is, depending upon the severity of the handicap, there will be less coming from THEM in terms of personal communication and understanding. There’s nothing cruel in realizing this. Mentally handicapped persons are (to the degree their handicap defines) incapable of fully mutual and personal communication with others.
RD: I see God as so much higher than us - I don't think i could even live up to an equal relationship w/ God. Really, what do I have to contribute to the ALmighty God? The only reason he wants me is through grace. Not b/c of anything i've done.
Tom: Are you reading the same thread I’m reading? I’ve never suggested that having a personal relationship with God requires that we be divine, or that we are God’s equals. Nor have I denied that God’s wanting us is pure grace on his part, nor have I claimed that our enjoying a personal relationship with God is due to any merit or accomplishment we have “done.” Yes God is much higher than us. But yes we are created in his image. Ponder that, Gina. This image is what makes us compatible for relating to him in precisely the personal and loving ways he freely decided to design us for. He can do that if he wants to.Your being created in God’s image, Gina, is what makes it true that you have more in common with God than you do with your pets and why it is possible for you and God to relate personally and lovingly to each other in ways you and your pets can never relate to each other. RD: 5. "God's knowledge changing" - I absolutely reject that idea.
Tom: Then you deny that God is omniscient.
RD: God knows all, I believe he knows the future even though no one on this board does.
Tom: Does God know what time it is? Does God know all the facts that constitute the present for ME now? Yes he does. And in five minutes will God know which facts constitute what will then be my present? Yes he will. What God believes to be MY present, my now, will have changed will it not? In fact, since our “now” is constantly changing with the flow of time, God’s knowledge of what our “now” is constantly changes. If you want to argue that God is timeless but you agree that we are temporal, AND you agree that God’s knowledge is absolutely immutable, then you have denied God’s omniscience.
RD: If anyone tries to argue for absolute truth they must concede this [that God is immutable]. If truth is unchanging from generation to generation, culture to culture, then certainly God is, b/c God is truth.
Tom: Hmmm. Well sort of. You can’t add together all the true propositions in existence and in so doing produce God. Try this instead: There are unchanging truths (God is love, God exists, humans are finite, salvation is by faith through grace, etc.) and there are changing truths (“It’s is now 12 o’clock noon” is true when spoken at 12 o’clock noon, but untrue when spoken at 1 o’clock noon; or “I am 43 years old” spoken by me on Feb. 24th 2004 but untrue when spoken by me on Feb. 25th 2004). Time affects the truth-value of some propositions but not others.
Or try this. As I write this, Gina, God knows “Tom is now writing Gina.” This is one piece of information God knows. OK? When you read this post, does God still know that “Tom is now writing Gina” is true? I don’t think so. I think that God knows the truth about the change that has occurred. When I was writing this, God knew “Tom is now writing Gina” is true, but when you read this post God will know that “Tom wrote Gina” is true. Like it or not, this is a change in what God knows to be true and false. God wouldn’t be omniscient if his knowledge didn’t change.
RD: If God is evolving from a tribal god (OT) to a personal god (modern times) - there is a progression and betterment. Change for the better implies that the previous state was not adequate. Therefore, not perfect.
Tom: Where in the world did THAT come from?
It’s all yours RD. Glad to have you back. I’ll stop chasing you around for a bit! My posts seem to be getting longer and longer. Gotta work on that!
Others?
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 05/08/2003 03:38:22 AM
Edited by - TGB on 05/08/2003 03:45:49 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 5/8/2003 2:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Might be don-
ALthough I don't believe in prooftexting, here's a verse that supports me: Isaiah 43:7 "everyone who is called by my name,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made."
I guess I don't understand your point anyway.
ReasonableDoubt,
Just so you know, I wasn't making an attempt at using the scripture reference as a prooftext. I'm quite sure I would lose bigtime in a prooftext war . Just trying to paint a picture.
That picture being one of a daily walk with God , unencumbered by God requiring a relationship of master/slave | GOD/puny human | WORSHIPPED/worshipper . We find our relationship with God to be "in Christ" , free of need. Does God inspire awe in me, yes. Does God require awe from me, no .
peace and love, don
---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 5/8/2003 3:58 AM (GMT -6) | |
Tom: “Oh Unmovable God of Control! It’s such a comfort to know that you unconditionally predetermine the words I now speak, along with everything else that’s happening in the world. Even when I don’t pray, you determine that too! What an awesome God. You always get what you want. The world runs like a finely tuned watch, Lord. You’re the author and we’re just actors in your novel acting out our predetermined scripts. Whatever path my life takes, I know you planned each detail and that even if I wind up in hell, that’s your good pleasure and you get glory from that too.”
Greg: Brilliant. Just brilliant.
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 5/8/2003 4:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks, Tom. That last post was beautifully written.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/8/2003 4:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Thanks, Tom. That last post was beautifully written.
Brett
Thanks Brandon.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 68 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:12 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 |
|
|