 |
| 
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/11/2003 8:57 AM (GMT -6) |   | I was thinking of this - if we grant complete OV freedom (which means no deterministic or middle knowledge)- doesn't the scenario come down to this:
God has decided that human freedom to choose love is more morally important than preventing all, or most, evil. So he has an objectively good reason to allow evil, that the greater good (ie, love) is obtained. This greater good outweighs the evil and thus justifies it.
But, if God cannot know the future free acts of humans, how can he be sure that this objective of greater good will be obtained? Is it morally defensible for him to continue to create humans, and not step in to prevent evil, if he can't be sure that the greater good will be obtained at all? Furthermore, how can he be certain that someone wont' be born who will not choose evil, ie, be perfect? If it is true that all have the freedom to choose good or evil- there can be no way that God can know that all will sin and fall short of the glory of God - unless he either determines (or allows) it - or sees in his middle knowledge that all will in fact freely sin. Then he can indeed see that the greater good will obtain.
Under the OV, however, it appears that God cannot know that all will sin - he cannot know how everyone will choose to exercise their freedom. You can't get away with it by saying he creates people with an inclination to sin or a sinful nature - b/c then true libertarianism does not exist.
Finally, if God cannot know what '"percentages" will obtain - ie, the ratio of loving choices over evil ones - he is taking a big , perhaps negligent risk of allowing as much moral evil as he does. B/c he can't then know that greater good will obtain.
Thoughts?
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/11/2003 9:29 AM (GMT -6) | | An attempt at brevity!
quote:
ReasonableDoubt
I was thinking of this - if we grant complete OV freedom (which means no deterministic or middle knowledge)- doesn't the scenario come down to this:
God has decided that human freedom to choose love is more morally important than preventing all, or most, evil. So he has an objectively good reason to allow evil, that the greater good (ie, love) is obtained. This greater good outweighs the evil and thus justifies it.
But, if God cannot know the future free acts of humans, how can he be sure that this objective of greater good will be obtained? Is it morally defensible for him to continue to create humans, and not step in to prevent evil, if he can't be sure that the greater good will be obtained at all? Furthermore, how can he be certain that someone wont' be born who will not choose evil, ie, be perfect? If it is true that all have the freedom to choose good or evil- there can be no way that God can know that all will sin and fall short of the glory of God - unless he either determines (or allows) it - or sees in his middle knowledge that all will in fact freely sin. Then he can indeed see that the greater good will obtain.
Under the OV, however, it appears that God cannot know that all will sin - he cannot know how everyone will choose to exercise their freedom. You can't get away with it by saying he creates people with an inclination to sin or a sinful nature - b/c then true libertarianism does not exist.
Finally, if God cannot know what '"percentages" will obtain - ie, the ratio of loving choices over evil ones - he is taking a big , perhaps negligent risk of allowing as much moral evil as he does. B/c he can't then know that greater good will obtain.
Thoughts?
This all is built upon a foundation where there is a "morality" that is larger than God.
(Was that short enough?)
Augustine's system for understanding sin is along that vein too. I first was confronted with pausing to recognize that through THIS article (Yes, by a Greek theologian!): www.romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm . In it the author remarks:
quote:
II. The Justice of God and Law
It is obvious, according to what has been said about St. Paul's views concerning the non-dualistic nature of fallen creation, that for Paul there cannot exist any system of moral laws inherent in a natural and normal universe. Therefore, what man accepts as just and good according to his observations of human relationships within society and nature cannot be confused with the justice of God. The justice of God has been revealed uniquely and fully only in Christ.[ 44 ] No man has the right to substitute his own conception of justice for that of God.[ 45 ]
The justice of God as revealed in Christ does not operate according to objective rules of conduct,[ 46 ] but rather according to the personal relationships of faith and love.[ 47 ] "The law is not made for a just man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners..."[ 48 ] Yet the law is not evil, but good [ 49 ] and even spiritual.[ 50 ] However, it is not enough. It is of a temporary and pedagogical nature,[ 51 ] and in Christ must be fulfilled [ 52 ] and surpassed by personalistic love, according to the image of God's love as revealed in Christ.[ 53 ] Faith and love in Christ must be personal. for this reason, faith without love is empty. "Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing."[ 54 ] Likewise, acts of faith bereft of love are of no avail. "Though I bestow all my goods and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing."[ 55 ]
There is no life in the following of objective rules. If there were such a possibility of receiving life by living according to law, there would be no need of redemption in Christ. "Righteousness should have been by the law."[ 56 ] If a "law was given capable of giving life"[ 57 ] then salvation, and not a promise, was bestowed upon Abraham.[ 58 ] But life does not exist in the law. It is rather of essence of God, "Who alone hath immortality."[ 59 ] Only God can bestow life and this He does freely, according to his own will,[ 60 ] in His own way, and at the time of His own choosing.[ 61 ]
On the other hand, it is a grave mistake to make the justice of God responsible for death and corruption. Nowhere does Paul attribute the beginnings of death and corruption to God. On the contrary, nature was subjected to vanity and corruption by the devil,[ 62 ] who through the sin and death of the first man managed to lodge himself parasitically within creation, of which he was already a part but at first not yet its tyrant. For Paul, the transgression of the first man opened the way for the entrance of death into the world,[ 63 ] but this enemy [ 64 ] is certainly not the finished product of God. Neither can the death of Adam, or even of each man, be considered the outcome of any decision of God to punish.[ 65 ] St. Paul never suggests such an idea.
To get at the basic presuppositions of Biblical thinking, one must abandon any juridical scheme of human justice which demands punishment and rewards according to objective rules of morality. To approach the problem of original sin in such a naive manner as to say that tout lecteur sense concilura qu'une penalite commune implique une offense commune, and that thus all share in the guilt of Adam,[ 66 ] is to ignore the true nature of the justice of God and deny and real power to the devil.
The relationships which exist among God, man and the devil are not according to rules and regulations, but according to personalistic freedom. The fact that there are laws forbidding one from killing his neighbor does not imply the impossibility of killing not only one, but hundreds of thousands of neighbors. If man can disregard rules and regulations of good conduct, certainly the devil cannot be expected to follow such rules if he can help it. St. Paul's version of the devil is certainly not that of one who is simply obeying general rules of nature and carrying out the will of God by punishing souls in hell. Quite on the contrary, he is fighting God dynamically by means of all possible deception, trying by all his cunning and power to destroy the works of God.[ 67 ] Thus salvation for man and creation cannot come by a simple act of forgiveness of any juridical imputation of sin, nor can it come by any payment of satisfaction to the devil (Origen) or to God (Rome). Salvation can come only by the destruction of the devil and his power.[ 68 ]
Thus, according to St. Paul, it is God Himself Who has destroyed "principalities and powers" by nailing the handwriting in ordinances, which was against us, to the cross of Christ.[ 69 ] "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing to them their offences."[ 70 ] although we were in sin, God did not hold this against us, but has declared His own justice to those who believe in Christ.[ 71 ] The justice of God is not according to that of men, which operates by the law of works.[ 72 ] For St. Paul, the justice of God and the love of God are not to be separated for the sake of any juridical doctrine of atonement. The justice of God and the love of God as revealed in Christ are the same thing. In Romans 3:21-26, for example, the expression, "love of God," could very easily be substituted for the "justice of God."
It is interesting to note that every time St. Paul speaks about the wrath of God it is always that which is revealed to those who have become hopelessly enslaved, by their own choosing, to the flesh and the devil.[ 73 ] Although creation is held captive in corruption, those without the law are without excuse in worshipping and living falsely, because "the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead[ 74 ]--"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the desires of their own hearts to dishonor their own bodies between themselves..."[ 75 ] and again, "God gave them over to reprobate mind."[ 76 ] This does not mean that god caused them to become what they are, but rather that He gave them up as being completely lost to corruption and the power of the devil. One must also interpret other similar passages in like manner.[ 77 ]
This giving up by God of people who have already become hardened in their hearts against His works is not restricted to the gentiles, but extends, also, to Jews.[ 78 ] "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified."[ 79 ] And, "For as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law."[ 80 ] The gentiles, however, even though they are not under the Mosaic law, are not excused from the responsibility of personal sin, for they, "having not the law, are a law unto themselves, who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and amongst themselves accusing or else excusing their thoughts."[ 81 ] At the last judgment, all men, whether under the law or not, whether hearers of Christ or not, shall be judged by Christ according to the Gospel as preached by Paul,[ 82 ] and not according to any system of natural laws. Even though the invisible things of God "from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead," there is still no such thing as moral law inherent in the universe. The gentiles who "have not the law" but who "do by nature the things contained in the law" are not abiding by any natural system of moral laws in the universe. They rather "shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness." Here, again, one sees Paul's conception of personal relationships between God and man. "God hath shewed it unto them, [ 83 ] and it is God Who is still speaking to fallen man outside of the law, through the conscience and in the heart, which for Paul is the center of man's thoughts, [ 84 ] and for members of the body of Christ the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit [ 85 ] and Christ.[ 86 ]
(from ORIGINAL SIN ACCORDING TO ST. PAUL, by John S. Romanides)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/11/2003 9:36 AM (GMT -6) | | | Well if we are created in God's image, presumably we CAN know what is moral and what is not (both from reason and natural law and the Bible). If we can't then we may as well give up - God must be incomprehensible. God is GOod - right? On what basis can we say that if he doesn't comport to our knowledge of good? IF it's some other good, then we can't even figure it out and it's silly to say that God is Good - God is Love, etc. b/c we have no clue what those entities are. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/11/2003 10:33 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
God is GOod - right? On what basis can we say that if he doesn't comport to our knowledge of good? IF it's some other good, then we can't even figure it out and it's silly to say that God is Good - God is Love, etc. b/c we have no clue what those entities are.
I think that THIS TIME you are saying (above) that the basis of goodness is the Person of God. The other time I took you to be saying that there was something other than God to be "morally defensible for him" from: something other them himself for things to be "justified" by. (I saw you to be saying something different the first time. Did I make a mistake--then, sorry. But that was what I read inbetween the lines.)
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 06/11/2003 7:29:32 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/11/2003 12:39 PM (GMT -6) | | It would seem, RD, that as you're making heads-way into an understanding of the Open View, you're perplexed by the concept of God's omnipotence in view of the Open View. And this is good!
First, however, God already knows everyone born into the world as a sinful human being:
For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
and
What then? Are we better off? Certainly not, for we have already charged that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin, 3:10 just as it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one."
We know this to be both true and unchangable because it's never stated as conditional; no one yet, other than Jesus the Christ, has ever stepped up (nor can step up) to the forefront and professed a perfect, sinless life. And it's not going to happen in the future. We can use the concept of a corrupt bloodline to make the point, but that's difficult to sustain for many because one can't see the corruption in, say, an "innocent" child. Nevertheless, the corruption is there. And that God saves children, who've never understood the Gospel because they're too young, is no harder to understand than realizing they, too, must have the shedded blood of the lamb applied. They don't "choose" this, but that's only because they can't; God chooses for them, and I'm sure the children will all be greatful that God thought it better to choose life instead of death for them, since they couldn't do so themselves.
Now, just because people are both free to choose (NOT in all areas of life, actually in very few) doesn't, for one minute, put God in any disadvantage. Neither we nor this universe is so sophisticatedly created, RD, that it's a challenge to God to run it, get his cake and eat it in the end. What you are experiencing, RD, is the realization of how LITTLE you understood what it takes to say, "God can do all things; God is omnipotent" PRIOR to your knowledge of the Open View. Most holders of the Classical or Traditional views (of which I was one) find this out as they struggle with the Open View. I say again, what's really happening here is that your conception of God's omnipotence is showing itself to be much less believed under the Classical/Traditional view than you thought it was. And that's really a great thing to experience. It will ultimately make your view of God's omnipotence that much bigger and stronger.
In an exhaustive-foreknowledge view, God is actually hand-tied. He may know what's going to happen, but if it's already settled, because He knows the end for the beginning exhaustively, then what can God do? He can't intervene: to do so would explicitly demonstrate that His foreknowledge was NOT exhaustive, and out goes the EDF concept. For God would not know all that will possible happen in EVERY single aspect of existence, and then intervene DIFFERENTLY when He's already known what He would do ahead of time.
If we respond to this with, "Well, God knew all the moves He would ever make in response to all the moves I would ever amke, then both God AND we are hand-tied: every move, thought, word, deed, action, feeling, emotion that will happen is not only already known by God, but every response to is is already planned out. Ah, but if that's the case, then the game is played: neither God nor I can change anything about it. Oh, we may THINK we are, but we're not. It would be like this (God speaking): "Okay, RD will say this, Keith will say that, RD will do this, I'll do that, then Joe will do and feel this and pray to me about it--I know every word he'll say, and I'll do this in response, and ..." Well, you get the point. It's all figured out, done and in the bag. There is no freedom, only the illusion of freedom. I move, God moves what He already knew He'd move--He HAS to because He already foreknew it. Then I respond, then God (and others) responde, then God, then me, then God, then me, then ... and on and on it goes. What you end up with is a game fully played and unchangable before it's ever happened. It'd be like the sports announcer going through all the announcing of a game that has not happened yet but all the moves of said game being known before hand. There is simply no freedom. (Note, too, that the longer the game is played out, the more confined the field becomes: the intricacy becomes so tightly wound that action/response simply binds one's "freedom" to choose into chains of mere response.)
Now, in the OV, however, the language of Scripture that creates this concept opens wide the opportunity for God (and us in a much miniscule way) to do all sorts of things, to be free (again, our freedom in limited fashion). I mean, God is suddenly being God and acting within the framework of one who's ominipotent. Do we really think that just because I may choose x, y or z that God is ever going to sit back and say, "Oh man, now what do I do? Starkman really pulled a fast one one me. My options are limited and I'm kind of stuck here. Sheesh, I'm not sure if this plan of mine will work or not"? Not at all. The world is under His feet in this case. Oh, but wait: when we Open Theists talk about God's will not being accomplished, or God not getting His way, aren't we conceding to a defeated (or dearned close) God? No. And the reason is because the Open Theist is talking such language in a context. A very specific context created ... by God ... for this very possibility of "defeat" of His will!
When I say, "Wow, God sure got messed over by the way Israel treated Him," or "God didn't get his way with so-and-so," I'm talking in the context of that area of freedom GOD CREATED for this exact element to be possible! God created the environment of human choice (and such on planet earth) that there WOULD be this element of chance that God wouldn't get His way or that His will wouldn't come to fruition. BUT . . . (and only but), this element of choice that effects an outcome frustrating to God is ONLY in this arena (our limited areas of choice). For pete's sake, we don't think God's going to create something so god-like that it rivals His own being, do we? (Many theologins would say He can't even create such an entity.) You and I can't see the behind-the-scenes of all God's options, powers and abilities to mess with our game all He wants. And He shows this hand occaisionally with statements like, "It WILL be such-and-such," or "I WILL bring and end to ...," or "There will be a new heaven and a new earth," and statements like this. Nothing is to hard or impossible for God within our created environment. He never created anything giving it, or its environment, allowance to jeapordize the essence of His being--as I said, many theologins would simply say that it can't be done anyway.
For most folk converting from the Classical/Traditional view to the Open View, God's omnipotence becomes much bigger in the mind's grasp; it's forced to become bigger. And for this we can be greatful.
I hope this contributes to the conversation,
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/11/2003 1:19 PM (GMT -6) | | We're still praying that God's Will be Done regarding ya RD!!!!!!!
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 | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 6/11/2003 7:02 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW, what exactly is God's will for RD? That she embrace the OV?
RD, would you agree that this is God's will for you?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 6/11/2003 7:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman, I understand the background of your comment when you said, "For most folk converting from the Classical/Traditional view to the Open View, God's omnipotence becomes much bigger in the mind's grasp; it's forced to become bigger. And for this we can be greatful" but again, I must not only defend the trad. view, but I must disagree with you. When I personally embraced the OV, God grew so small that I no longer desired to be a Christian. He was not a God I could rely on, trust, or even feel confident in. Heck, if he does not know as much as the OV claims He does not know, where does that leave me? Praying to a God who can not answer my prayers because the future is not yet made.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/11/2003 7:15 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Starkman, I understand the background of your comment when you said, "For most folk converting from the Classical/Traditional view to the Open View, God's omnipotence becomes much bigger in the mind's grasp; it's forced to become bigger. And for this we can be greatful" but again, I must not only defend the trad. view, but I must disagree with you. When I personally embraced the OV, God grew so small that I no longer desired to be a Christian. He was not a God I could rely on, trust, or even feel confident in. Heck, if he does not know as much as the OV claims He does not know, where does that leave me? Praying to a God who can not answer my prayers because the future is not yet made.
Christian,
You were absolutely right to shed such a nonsensical concept of God. If this is what you think the OV actually is, you are simply wrong. The OV emphatically affirms that God answers prayer, for He is able to do anything.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 6/11/2003 7:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Please explain John Earp how to have confidence praying to a God who knows not the outcome of our choices. Example- My daughter prays about which college to attend, A or B. God does not know which she will attend according to OV. He "cannot" know since it is her choice and not yet made. It is a "possiblility" and "open". The future is OPEN and not settled. It cannot be settled until the person makes the choice and makes the future. God watches and is according to OV even often surprised. In fact, according to OV, he even often repents because even he does not know the outcome of his very own choices! He creates a child named Hitler having no idea that Hitler will make evil choices. Hitler is the master of his own destiny as my daughter is. She does not need to pray in fact. Her destiny is in her hands. Correct me where I have said nonsensicals as you indicated. I believe I am correct in saying that God does not know which college she will attend until she makes the choice. It is her choice and he is not responsible for it. Where does this leave her? I can tell you. It leaves her with a "Scr-w God" mentality since God honestly cannot help her with many decisions in her life. Add to that the comments made in here that Scripture is not applicable to all things (such as homosexuality), and it leaves her in a deeper pit. She netiher needs God nor does she needs Scripture. All God is good for for her is that he loves her. Heck, she's got an awesome fiance, friends, and family who love her. Why does this young, vibrant, capable lady need a God who honestly cannot guide her future since this future is "open" and even God has no idea of what the future holds for her. To be honest with you, she does not need his love because she has much love in her life. She is confident, happy, and secure. She does not need God if a person looks at it with the idea of the OV that God is all about relationship.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/11/2003 8:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Christian
Please explain John Earp how to have confidence praying to a God who knows not the outcome of our choices. Example- My daughter prays about which college to attend, A or B. God does not know which she will attend according to OV. He "cannot" know since it is her choice and not yet made. It is a "possiblility" and "open". The future is OPEN and not settled. It cannot be settled until the person makes the choice and makes the future.
John
What makes you think God would not know the best college for your daughter to attend, and would influence her to make the right choice? Do you really believe that the future must be settled for prayer to have meaning? It seems to me that precisely the opposite would be true. If the future is settled, why pray at all? Whatever choice you daughter makes is by definition God's will if your view is correct, for she can choose none other than God's will, as it is settled ahead of time.
Christian
God watches and is according to OV even often surprised. In fact, according to OV, he even often repents because even he does not know the outcome of his very own choices! He creates a child named Hitler having no idea that Hitler will make evil choices. Hitler is the master of his own destiny as my daughter is.
John
I don't think you are correct in saying the God has absolutely no idea how we will turn out. The OV affirms that God in fact has profound understanding of human nature, intimate knowledge of our history, our thoughts, our feelings, and our inclinations, and that He in fact knows what one would do and what one might do, given certain circumstances.
Christian
She does not need to pray in fact. Her destiny is in her hands. Correct me where I have said nonsensicals as you indicated.
John
This is precisely where you have misstated the OV and caricaturized it into the nonsensical. The true OV does not say you don't need to pray; rather, it states that prayer is absolutely essential to God working out his purpose in our lives. The true OV also does not say one's destiny is entirely in one's own hands. Rather, it states that God works with people to bring about righteousness in their lives, and gives human true choice in accepting and/or rejecting His will. I think the crucial distinction you are missing is that the OV does not teach self-salvation or "it's all up to you." The OV is synergistic, not monergistic. It sounds to me like you think the OV says it's all up to us as individuals, which is definitely not a true representation of the OV.
Christian
Where does this leave her? I can tell you. It leaves her with a "Scr-w God" mentality since God honestly cannot help her with many decisions in her life.
John
It sounds to me like an attitudinal problem on her part, not an indictment of the open view. I've known lots of people who adopted the "scr-w God" mentality--from many different theological persuasions. You also are simply mistaken if you think the OV teaches that "God honestly cannot help her with many decisions in life." Where are you getting this? Much to the contrary, the OV emphatically affirms that God is loving and relational. If you love your daughter, which it sounds like you really do, don't you try to persuade her to make wise choices, help her anyway you can, and so forth? How much more does God?
Christian
Add to that the comments made in here that Scripture is not applicable to all things (such as homosexuality), and it leaves her in a deeper pit. She netiher needs God nor does she needs Scripture. All God is good for for her is that he loves her. Heck, she's got an awesome fiance, friends, and family who love her. Why does this young, vibrant, capable lady need a God who honestly cannot guide her future since this future is "open" and even God has no idea of what the future holds for her. To be honest with you, she does not need his love because she has much love in her life. She is confident, happy, and secure. She does not need God if a person looks at it with the idea of the OV that God is all about relationship.
John
Here we see the dire need for all of us to completely work through a theology or philosophy before we pronounce judgement on it, much less try to act on it. Lots of people, regardless of whether or not they believe in the OV, have the kind of attitude described in your above paragraph. I've met plenty of them. And the fact that some OVers seem to discount much of Scripture does not mean that the system itself necessarily discounts Scripture. I for one have taken lots of flack here for my stand on what I perceive to be basic scriptural standards of right and wrong. But I don't see what appear to me to be the relativistic morals of some OVers as necessary to the OV system, not at all.
My experience with OVers elsewhere (among Moral Government Theology advocates) has been precisely the opposite of what I've found here--if anything, the OVers I've known from other groups on the intenet are absolutely radical about obeying God! Myself included.
For me, the OV has only underscored the extreme call of being a disciple of Jesus. Just because someone holds to the OV and at the same time holds to antinomianism does not in and of itself discredit the OV. Many, if not most, classical theists are quite antinomian--look at Augustine, Calvin and Luther. All of these theologians taught the "sin boldly" concept--"Love God and do as you will."
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/12/2003 3:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Christian,
quote:
Starkman, I understand the background of your comment when you said, "For most folk converting from the Classical/Traditional view to the Open View, God's omnipotence becomes much bigger in the mind's grasp; it's forced to become bigger. And for this we can be greatful" but again, I must not only defend the trad. view, but I must disagree with you. When I personally embraced the OV, God grew so small that I no longer desired to be a Christian.
You are the only one I've met on this board who feels this way. I really don't think, Christian, that it's the OV that is at fault, I still think it's your perspective and understanding of it that is. And hey, that's what being on this board's all about; working through our issues of theology and life. Hang in there, bud. We're all in this together!
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/12/2003 4:10 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Christian: When I personally embraced the OV, God grew so small that I no longer desired to be a Christian.
Starkman: You are the only one I've met on this board who feels this way.
Starkey, Modes also was expressing some serious caution.
Whether the OV is "at fault," or not, the point has been made that: Our thinking about God CAN make God either larger than our own mind, or smaller.
Take Christian's expression as it is. He voices what is his to voice.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 06/12/2003 09:12:06 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Leila
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 6/12/2003 4:13 AM (GMT -6) | | John and Starkman: your comments have been very helpful in helping explain the OV a bit more. Please excuse me for sidetracking for a moment, but I’m wondering if you could help me with this.
Although I am coming to accept the Open View more and more, a couple things are nagging at me. One issue is the fact that some people’s choices and actions are so much more constrained by life’s circumstances than others so as to render the concept of “free will” almost meaningless in their lives.
One basic premise of OV is that we were all given free will to make morally right choices, to obey God, to love God, to become a Christian, etc. Therefore, we are each held responsible for our actions and choices.
But what do you say of those whose actions and choices are so constrained by factors beyond their control? Am I correct in assuming that Open Theists concede that each individual’s life is determined to varying degrees? (eg., a child born to a poor 16-year old drug addicted mother has far fewer choices than one born to a stable, well-to-do family).
And then what about other more subtle factors – but nonetheless beyond-the-person’s control -- that influence a person’s choices in life? (e.g., one with a prideful, stubborn personality; one whose nature is impulsive rather than contemplative; one who was raised in a materialistic family, etc.). So the question becomes at what point do we say that one’s actions are truly free and that everyone can freely accept or reject God? Aren’t some people’s lives so influenced by factors beyond their control so as to almost necessitate that they will, due to factors outside their control, reject God?
The second thing I am confused about is that I've read repeatedly on this site in support of the OV that if there is love, it must be freely chosen. I don't understand why this should be the case (or perhaps I don't understand what love is). For example, when I think of the love I have for my children, I feel that it is something beyond my control; absolutely no will is involved; it is something totally unconditional -- unconditional to my feelings, their actions, etc. To me, this kind of effortless love undermines the notion of free will more than supports it.
Any comments in helping me understand these issues will be truly appreciated. Thanks.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/12/2003 4:14 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW- how do you know what God's will is regarding me or my theology and that it is not already being done? That just seems pretty presumptuous to post something like that. I can't avoid thinking that you are considering me in need of serious prayer or something in order to come around to your version of God.
Thank you but I am just fine - don't worry about me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/12/2003 5:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey PoW,
quote:
Whether the OV is "at fault," or not, the point has been made that: Our thinking about God CAN make God either larger than our own mind, or smaller.
I wasn't commenting on Christian's thinking; I was commenting on his perspective of the Open View: it is incorrect, in my opinion. That he has a framework of God is common to all of us. That it comes from a skewed perspective of the Open View is another issue altogether. (I do not believe that Modes has any problems similar to that of Christians in regard to his perspective of the Open View. He may not believe it theologically, but I've not read anything of his posts on this board that substantiate the similarities you've mentioned.)
Hey Leila,
quote:
One issue is the fact that some people’s choices and actions are so much more constrained by life’s circumstances than others so as to render the concept of “free will” almost meaningless in their lives.
I think God is more aware of that than we are. Would you as a parent say to your child, "You know, we could have had a relationship if only you would have chosen to have one with me. Ah, but alas, you weren't capable of choosing. Sorry 'bout that, but that's the way the chips fall." Heavens, no. And neither does God present Himself to us as one who would choose to treat human beings in this accord when they are unable to choose for themselves.
quote:
The second thing I am confused about is ... when I think of the love I have for my children, I feel that it is something beyond my control; absolutely no will is involved; it is something totally unconditional -- unconditional to my feelings, their actions, etc. To me, this kind of effortless love undermines the notion of free will more than supports it.
Do you know how many parents there are who DON'T feel toward their children how you feel towards yours? There are countless parents who have to love their children without much emotion or feeling. THIS is the epitomy of love.
Further, merely because you love your children without any effort--almost as if there's no choice but to do so--is not an issue in regard to the bigger picture of the Open View. Remember: the crux of our freedom is within a small arena and very limited in movement at that; we are, by far, much more confined than we are free. Our gift of freedom is first and foremost in the area of choosing to serve God; next, it is to choose to serve (love) others. Often times when pebbles and stones seem to get into the sandle of our thinking, and cause great irritation, it is because we forget that there is first this HUGE rock called "You are not free in all things and you are very limited in what freedom you do possess--not to mention, the waters of what freedom you have are muddied by the sinful status of your being."
The Open view is not something that tosses the world of freedom into our hands; it simply is a way to make sense of the minute amount of freedom that we have. And yes, there's the kinds of questions you have raised, but the bigger picture of the Open View helps to clarify those irritants, I believe.
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown
Edited by - Starkman on 06/12/2003 10:39:47 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/12/2003 7:09 AM (GMT -6) | | I think my original point has been missed entirely. I'll try again - if you agree that there is no created being who is sinless (as the scriptures teach) - and there never will be one who is - what does that mean?
Either that when God inspired that Scripture- he knew through foreknowledge that there would never be anyone perfect, or he purposely created people to not be perfect. How else could he make such a statement?
And then according to the OV, God could not know with complete certainty that no created being would ever be perfect. If he could, how can that be accounted for under the OV?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Leila
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 6/12/2003 7:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Starkman. Just a few follow-up questions please:
The Open View supports the notion that we have freedom. You stated:
quote:
Remember: the crux of our freedom is within a small arena and very limited in movement at that; we are, by far, much more confined than we are free. Our gift of freedom is first and foremost in the area of choosing to serve God; next, it is to choose to serve (love) others.
Would you say that everyone – regardless of his/her unique situation in life – is free to choose to serve God and others? Also, is service to God and others the extent of our freedom and is everything else predetermined?
You also stated:
quote:
Do you know how many parents there are who DON'T feel toward their children how you feel towards yours? There are countless parents who have to love their children without much emotion or feeling. THIS is the epitomy of love.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean about this being the epitome of love. Of course I know there are parents who don’t feel unconditional love toward their children, but may still feed them, clothe them – in other words – SERVE them. But is this type of emotionless service love, much less the “epitome” of love?
Thanks.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/12/2003 11:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Leila,
In view of my post "Remember: the crux of our freedom is within a small arena and very limited in movement at that; we are, by far, much more confined than we are free. Our gift of freedom is first and foremost in the area of choosing to serve God; next, it is to choose to serve (love) others.", you said,
quote:
Would you say that everyone – regardless of his/her unique situation in life – is free to choose to serve God and others?
First, is everyone CREATED free to serve/love God and others? Yes. (Just put this into the negative to see why (God speaking): "All human beings are not free to love me or others." Doesn't work, does it!
Second, are people often hindered from being able to love God or others? Well, certainly. But ultimately, in most cases one is able to serve God and others. An example, however, of when one wouldn't be free to do so is if one is being kept in a coma or under heavy sedation apart from that person's will. But remember, would God say to that person, "Well, you know, it's just too bad that we can't have a relationship between each other, because you were in a coma. Nothing I can do about that. Sorry." I mean, that doesn't work either, does it.
quote:
Also, is service to God and others the extent of our freedom and is everything else predetermined?
Here again, rephrase the question to a statement (God speaking):
"Human beings beings only have the freedom to love me and others; they have no other freedom." Now does that sound like truth? No. Not at all. I have the freedom to eat, to ride a HARLEY DAVIDSON (when God provides one, you see!), to do all sorts of things and think all sorts of thoughts and say all sorts of words.
You quote me: "Do you know how many parents there are who DON'T feel toward their children how you feel towards yours? There are countless parents who have to love their children without much emotion or feeling. THIS is the epitomy of love."
You said in response: quote:
I’m not sure I understand what you mean about this being the epitome of love. Of course I know there are parents who don’t feel unconditional love toward their children, but may still feed them, clothe them – in other words – SERVE them. But is this type of emotionless service love, much less the “epitome” of love?
Rephrase the question to a statement: "Anyone who doesn't have or feel emotion towards other people does not love people; but only serves people." Does that work? No. Not at all.
Love is not based on or found upon emotion, though it may be accompanied by it. Love is an attitude reavealed in an action. (Mind you, we use one word for love in English, but Greek, for instance, has several to differentiate between those "loves" that are emotion or feeling based and those that are not.)
So, the epitome of love is to give of one's self when one DOESN'T feel like it or want to. It is action based upon the attitude that the other is of worth and value. This is the epitome of love; not to feel, but to value and respect.
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown
Edited by - Starkman on 06/12/2003 4:34:32 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 6/12/2003 12:43 PM (GMT -6) | | John, How does God know my daughter's college choice when he did not even know what would be Adam and Eve's choice (to eat or not to eat the apple)? If God knows my daughter's college, then isn't he taking away her free will? In fact, if she asks him to show her which college to go to, would he not then be making the decision for her if he tells or shows her? That would certainly not be free will. The OV places high premium on the person's free will. God does not force, control, or manipulate in the OV. He gives people choices and the outcome is up to them (OV). With this in mind, there is no use for prayer, at least not the prayer that asks God to show us His will. According to the OV, he does not know the future. How can God give us an answer about something he does not know? This is the premis of my question. If God does not know tomorrow, how can he then possibly "show his will" to us regarding future decisions and choices. We are on our own if the OV is correct. God is more of a benevolent friend who walks with us rather than one who goes before us. I hope that you can see the point I am making, whether you agree or not.
John, if God does not know the future, how then can you say that he knows how we will turn out? It's impossible, unless he knows the future. And as the OV believes, he would then know things like Hitler doing what Hitler did, or Adam and Eve eating the apple. He either knows the future or he does not. If College A is in L.A. and costs the same as College B in L.A. and if my daughter has her way paid to both colleges. If both are reputable, safe, and have good programs, so forth, God can still figure out? Let us say that he can. If he can figure out that she will go to college A, then he KNOWS THE FUTURE. Unless it is the day after she decided, in which case he'd know after she'd made the choice and according to the OV, he could say, "I figured that would be her choice." So then again we have a prayer dilema. Why should she pray seeking God's will when God gives her FREE will and has himself chosen not to know her choice until after the fact? He either knows or does not know the future. It cannot be both.
Yes, I love my daughter and hear what you are saying about how God loves her all the more and wants to help her and see her make wise choices. But, he cannot truly and ultimately help her. If the OV is right, tomorrow is unknown. It has not happened yet and according to G. Boyd, God cannot even know a person's choice until the choice is made. To help my daughter with future decisions, God must first wait for her to make the choice and then go from there advising her after the fact. Yes, John, I honestly believe that "God cannot help her with many decisions in life." Where am I getting it? First, from my own experience. Second, from conversations with Chrisitans during my experience in which they helped me to see the problems of the OV and how it was leading me away from the faith I'd known for so long
Where have you known other OVers on the internet? I am simply curious. Do you also know OVers in your life outside the internet? Again, curious.
By the way, my daughter has an outstanding attitude in life! But she never did accept the OV as I did. Many of my comments above were comment she would make when I was embracing the OV. It made me think.
Edited by - Christian on 06/12/2003 5:52:10 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/12/2003 1:25 PM (GMT -6) | | God can set up a contingency plan to guide your daughter as she begins her life away from home. One doesn't have to certainty about the future to plan for it.
Like take for example farmers. They don't know how much rain they will get or whether there will be enough snow-cover to protect their crops from the extremes of cold, but they can buy insurance and be prepared for a wide range of contingencies.
It just takes some additional faith to trust that EDF isn't needed to secure the future.
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 | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/12/2003 1:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Christian
John, How does God know my daughter's college choice when he did not even know what would be Adam and Eve's choice (to eat or not to eat the apple)?
John
The OV teaches that God certainly knows all possibilities, as well as all a person's thoughts and intentions. In the OV, God would certainly know what choice would be the BEST for your daughter, and would use His influence to get her to choose the right school. The difference between the OV and the classical view on this point is that in the classical view, the choice she makes was actually coerced, not free, as there could only have been one college she actually could have chosen.
Christian
If God knows my daughter's college, then isn't he taking away her free will? In fact, if she asks him to show her which college to go to, would he not then be making the decision for her if he tells or shows her?
John
It would not be taking away her free will, it would be influencing her (as opposed to coercing her) to choose God's will. God revealing his will to us does not take away our freedom to choose, though it in fact definitely should greatly influence us to make the right decision. This concept is a pervasive theme of Scripture, as in "choose you this day, whom you will serve," and "whosoever will may come." Think about it--do these statements in Scripture mean that the people they are addressed to have no choice in the matter? That God has done the deciding for them? Definitely not.
Christian
The OV places high premium on the person's free will. God does not force, control, or manipulate in the OV. He gives people choices and the outcome is up to them (OV). With this in mind, there is no use for prayer, at least not the prayer that asks God to show us His will.
John
Actually, it seems you are again oversimplifying the point of free will. It is not 100% up to us. The Holy Spirit desires greatly to influence us towards godly choices. The more open one is to the Holy Spirit, through prayer, fasting, Bible study, seeking God, and worship, the more the Holy Spirit will be able to work in us to bring our mind in line with "the mind of Christ." But it is not all up to us in the OV, it is up to us to yield to the Lord's will. I am unaware of how this differs at all from the way most evangelicals speak of discipleship; i.e., "submit yourselves therefore unto God, resist the devil, and he will flee from you." It's not about coercion, it's about persuasion.
Christian
According to the OV, he does not know the future. How can God give us an answer about something he does not know? This is the premis of my question. If God does not know tomorrow, how can he then possibly "show his will" to us regarding future decisions and choices.
John
The funny thing is, the thing I find so appealing about the Open view is precisely the opposite of what you are claiming the OV says. The OV over and over emphasizes God's desire for us to walk with him in a genuine relationship of LOVE. This IS God's will for all. It simply is not true that the OV teaches God has no plan or will for our life. For one example, the OV emphasizes strongly 2 Pet. 3:9--that it is NOT God's will that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance. Here we have but one example (among many) of how the OV emphasizes God's will being done in our life--that we not perish. I think all Christians would agree that this is a fundamental part of the will of God for our lives--that we not go to hell, that we repent and find life in Jesus.
Christian
John, if God does not know the future, how then can you say that he knows how we will turn out?
John
Where do you come up with stuff like this, that God does not know the future? What the OV says is that the future is to a certain extent open to human choices, but that ultimately the will of God will in fact prevail over human history (e.g., Book of Revelation). What the OV denies is that the future is already absolutely set in stone. In addition the OV teaches that God knows all possibilities as real, as well as what one might and what one would do given certain circumstances. Basically the OV affirms the scriptural theme, "If my people...humble themselves and pray...then..." Do you agree that you have the choice to pray or not pray each day and in each circumstance?
Christian
It's impossible, unless he knows the future. And as the OV believes, he would then know things like Hitler doing what Hitler did, or Adam and Eve eating the apple. He either knows the future or he does not. If College A is in L.A. and costs the same as College B in L.A. and if my daughter has her way paid to both colleges. If both are reputable, safe, and have good programs, so forth, God can still figure out? Let us say that he can. If he can figure out that she will go to college A, then he KNOWS THE FUTURE. Unless it is the day after she decided, in which case he'd know after she'd made the choice and according to the OV, he could say, "I figured that would be her choice." So then again we have a prayer dilema. Why should she pray seeking God's will when God gives her FREE will and has himself chosen not to know her choice until after the fact? He either knows or does not know the future. It cannot be both.
John
Again, you are missing the point of the OV. The future is partly certain and partly contingent, not all or nothing, as you seem to think. Let's consider for a moment the scenario you describe about your daughter's college of choice. God, being supremely intelligent and having complete knowledge of all the facts, people, teachers, etc., at each college, is more than able to lead your daughter to the school that would be best for her. This does not contradict the OV at all. God also is more than able to lead your daughter to the perfect husband for her. The crucial thing is, will your daughter listen and follow? All earnest Christians, whether they believe in it or not, in fact do live as a true Open Theist does--seeking to find the will of God and fearing to miss the will of God.
Christian
Where have you known other OVers on the internet? I am simply curious. Do you also know OVers in your life outside the internet? Again, curious.
John
I am involved in several discussion groups that include some OVTers. I also know several personally. They all seek to find the perfect will of God for their life.
Again, I must reiterate that the depiction you give of Open Theism is simply incorrect. Based on your absurd caricaturization of Open Theism, I have to conclude that you have never read anything by any OV scholar at all. If you're going to accuse us OVers of believing something, please make sure you get your facts straight. The picture you give of OT is simply not the correct one. Your objections do not follow from the basic premises of the Open view.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/13/2003 6:53 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't think Christian's depiction of OV theology is absurd at all. I have read up on this and have the same kind of objections he has. Maybe b/c this theology seems rather incoherent we have a hard time figuring out what exactly it is you believe.
For example - it seems like OV tries to have its cake and eat it too - so the future CAN be known at times when it seems like it has to - but at other times it can NOT be known. Well which is it? The future is partly open, partly settled? Tell me how that is possible. If any part is at all settled, it necessarily affects everything else, or else there is no guarantee that it is actually settled at all as to those particular things.
We know that God will prevail in the end? I don't see how - he can't know that either, if He does, then he will bring each event around to culminate in that ultimate prevailing.
I also here OV saying that yes God does know every person;s heart, thoughts, and intentions. Why is it such a stretch then to know what the outcome of those thoughts and intentions will be?
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/13/2003 7:46 PM (GMT -6) | | RD
For example - it seems like OV tries to have its cake and eat it too - so the future CAN be known at times when it seems like it has to - but at other times it can NOT be known. Well which is it? The future is partly open, partly settled? Tell me how that is possible.
John
Because the Bible itself reveals that some things are in fact contingent. If/then statements are quite pervasive throughout Scripture. The OV simply tries to take these passages as really depicting potential reality (what might or could be). God, by virtue of his omnipotence, can of course determine as much of the future as necessary to accomplish his purposes. This is how the OV can affirm a "partly settled, partly open" future. With regard to the future, some things are already definite, while some things are contingent.
Dr. Boyd plainly spells this out in the following:
http://www.biblical-theology.com/omniscience/open.htm
RD
We know that God will prevail in the end? I don't see how - he can't know that either, if He does, then he will bring each event around to culminate in that ultimate prevailing.
John
God's ultimate triumph over all evil in the end is guaranteed in the Bible. The OV has always affirmed this and never denied it. God will triumph. Does he have to have exhaustive definite foreknowlege in order to ultimately win? No. As Open Theists affirm God's omnipotence, it does not follow that "God may not win in the end."
RD
I also here OV saying that yes God does know every person;s heart, thoughts, and intentions. Why is it such a stretch then to know what the outcome of those thoughts and intentions will be?
John
This I think is what OVers are talking about when they refer to might counterfactuals and would counterfactuals. The OV has never denied that God's omniscience includes all of present reality (even the very "thoughts and intents of the heart"--Heb. 4:12).
With classical theism, there simply is not "if" as far as God is concerned--all is certain to God. OV theism affirms the passages which speak of the certainty of God's purposes being accomplished in history as well as the passages which speak of contingency with regard to how moral agents will choose.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 06/14/2003 02:11:30 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Leila
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 6/14/2003 9:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Starkman,
You said that we are much more confined than we are free, but then went on to say in your last post:
quote:
I have the freedom to eat, to ride a HARLEY DAVIDSON (when God provides one, you see!), to do all sorts of things and think all sorts of thoughts and say all sorts of words.
Can you, as an Open Theist, concede that is is possible that perhaps your choices to eat or think certain thoughts are not truly free; that your perception that you have a choice in such matters is just illusory; that your genetics, culture, upbringing, age, etc. are not just influencing factors with respect to these actions, but are in fact determining factors?
Also, what would be examples of actions that the OV would say are "not free"?
| | Back to Top | | |
| 147 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:42 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 |
|
|