 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Spiritual warfare -- how does it work? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 10/14/2004 5:46 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Spen: I don't understand your position regarding authority. It seems that you don't believe that the demons have authority to do evil, just the will. Is this so?
Tom: So let's find another word, one that amounts to approving or condoning evil. Your examples illustrate God’s judgment, which might explain a lot. The distinction I was trying to make is between the "freedom" by which we choose evil and "that which" (what shall we call it?) makes choices to pursue evil an abuse of freedom. Does doing freely what we do mean we have the right to do it without opposition or consequence? Obviously not. So what is that something which we do NOT possess, that which are freedom IS NOT, which justifies others in opposing the evil which we "freely" chosen? Might I just say, "Hey, I have freedom to choose to abuse your child, so step aside an watch. You'd be revoking my freedom if you tried to stop me"? This is why I say our freedom from God is a freedom to CHOOSE but not a freedom to choose WITHOUT OPPOSITION OR CONSEQUENCE. We're free to choose to sin. God's free to oppose our sin (though not by revoking our free will/volition).
Spen: There is authority granted to evil powers (why not demons) and limits to that authority are also defined.
Tom: Is possessing people and holding them in bondage something demons have authority to do from God and so something we ought not oppose? What does the ministry of Christ tell us?
Tom
What if this "something" is "mercy." God has promised that ultimately He will oppose and judge to the uttermost all sin. At His own discretion, which is hidden from us, He allows sin and evil to continue to exist and afflict His creation. He does not oppose and immediately judge all evil and sin. Some evil and sin he allows. Some demonic activity He allows. Some attrocities committed by men He allows. At least one reason He does this is He is patient toward us, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
quote:
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
In the interim, between now and His revealed/experienced judgment, we are called to preach the gospel to all who will listen that they may flee His coming wrath and find safety in Christ and His death on the cross. How He tolerates, grants authority to, and allows evil activities to be carried our by Satan is not our direct responsibility. When confronted by the forces of evil we can answer as Michael the archangel who did, "not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” The Lord rebuking Satan directly is enough for us. We are commanded to battle Him by preaching the Word of God, the gospel.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 10/15/2004 1:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Spen,
quote:
At His own discretion, which is hidden from us, He allows sin and evil to continue to exist and afflict His creation. He does not oppose and immediately judge all evil and sin. Some evil and sin he allows. Some demonic activity He allows. Some attrocities committed by men He allows. At least one reason He does this is He is patient toward us, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
At least one more reason seems to be that He forebears evil because He wishes to SHOW His wrath (Rom. 9, etal). I don't know what that means unless it means He is waiting to get so angry He can't SUFFER evil any longer, and then pours out His wrath. This seems to me to be a doxological end.
BTW, Spen, are you an open theist? I was thinking that I read in an older thread that you aren't.
I am not a hyper-Calvinist nor do I believe that an unbelieving man, on his own, will ever choose to believe. I have sympathy for the OVer's fight against the destructive teachings of hyper-Calvininsm, however, I believe that scriptures contain a mystery relative to the "will"
- if a man is damned it is his own fault and God is just in damning him
- if a man is reconciled to God it is wholly God's work
- God desires all to be saved and died for the sins of all.
I aknowledge the logical contradiction and attirbute it to "transcendence" or my finite capacities. God has revealed Himself to us in Christ and in the Cross. This revelation is not exhaustive, however, and there are hidden things in God that I don't know and cannot understand, they remain mysteries. I can, however, understand the message of the gospel that He has revealed. It was so central and important that God physically became a man, spoke to us the words of God the Father with real vocal cords and the "words of the Spirit" became tangible to our physical ears. This message was one of an immediate offer of salvation and one of coming wrath and judgment on all who refuse it. The message and messenger were proven authentic through the triumph over death demonstrated in the resurrection.
The mechanics and HOW all of this working in detail in the heart of man regarding choice and his will - this is a mystery to me. I believe that Tom has acknowleded the same. It seems to me that a focus and centering on the message of the gospel is a good and secure place to be.
Regarding your comment concerning God's wrath. I believe that God can suffer whatever He chooses to suffer. Even in our sin we never force His hand. We never MAKE Him do anything. His actions and motivations within Himself are sufficient for Himself. He doesn't NEED to express wrath anymore than He NEEDS our love. He acts out of entire sufficiency. I believe that there is a time which He is aware of when the bowl of His wrath will be full and that He has decided that then He will empty it. The WHEN remains hidden to us but we have been given the remedy and told to flee the certainty of His coming wrath.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Leila
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 10/15/2004 4:16 PM (GMT -6) | | I totally agree with what Selah said about why the Cross is not always sufficient. For me personally, this thread has huge implications for my prayer life. I am not trying to develop an "airtight theodicy," but simply trying to understand this stuff in such a way so I can truly believe that my prayers DO matter and that I am not powerless in fighting a spiritual battle. Prayers of thanksgiving come easy to me as I have countless blessings in my life. But to be totally honest, when I experience evil -- whether it's worries about my children or others' tragedies or instability in the world -- I feel pretty powerless and prayer often feels like an exercise in futility.
Thanks you guys for trying to help me with this. I'm still trying to process it all before I respond with more questions. | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 10/15/2004 5:29 PM (GMT -6) | |
quote:
Spen:I am not a hyper-Calvinist nor do I believe that an unbelieving man, on his own, will ever choose to believe. I have sympathy for the OVer's fight against the destructive teachings of hyper-Calvininsm, however, I believe that scriptures contain a mystery relative to the "will"
- if a man is damned it is his own fault and God is just in damning him
- if a man is reconciled to God it is wholly God's work
- God desires all to be saved and died for the sins of all.
I aknowledge the logical contradiction and attirbute it to "transcendence" or my finite capacities.
Jeff: I see no logical contradiction to it. Could you explain why you see it as contradictory?
Spen: I think that when I say "wholly God's work" I would mean that an unbeliever will NEVER choose life and the Gospel left to himself. I believe that God intervenes even at this level to enable this to happen to some and that these choose. Why? I don't know - it is a mystery to me - but this mystery for me is found in God. As I understand the OV, you would attribute this mystery of "why?" only some choose life and the gospel to man and his use of his free will. I understand the arguments why this is believed. I don't think it is core, as long as the gospel is believed and that we trust in Christ's work alone for our salvation. I can see a destructive defect in hyper-Calvinism in which a person may trust in his "election" (which I believe is something hidden) for salvation. I would look upon this as someone claiming to know something that has not been revealed. on the other side, I can see the possibility in OV where one could trust in his "choice" for salvation (I am not inferring that all OVers do this, but is may be possible). I reject both. I believe that all the elect will hear the gospel and believe and be saved. All their names are written in the book of life in heaven now. I just don't have an advance copy and to me the names are hidden until the end. What has been revealed is that He has commanded me to preach the gospel to all on this earth until His return. He will accomplish His purposes, express His love to a sinful world, and save all whom He has chosen as I do.
quote:
Spen: Regarding your comment concerning God's wrath. I believe that God can suffer whatever He chooses to suffer.
Jeff: The scripture says God is longsuffering, but I'm not aware of any verses that say He can suffer infinitely, are you?
Spen: I didn't mean to imply that He will suffer infinitely, I communicated poorly if I gave that impression. I am firmly convinced that He has told us that He will NOT suffer His wrath to be restrained forever. He has promised us a judgment. What I meant to focus on is that I don't believe that we can "force" His hand by being bad enough to "make" Him judge us immediately or change the time He has already set for the judgment. This would be something like the atheist standing up and publicly daring God to smite him and blaspheming Him. He is impotent to force God to judge Him and change His plans by his paltry actions. God alone has decided when, how and to what extent He will act. This is all that I meant.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/15/2004 5:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Spen,
quote:
Spen: I think that when I say "wholly God's work" I would mean that an unbeliever will NEVER choose life and the Gospel left to himself.
Me too, for the most part. But as an OV'er I don't believe God knew election would be necessary before the Fall. After the Fall, God has been electing per His own purposes. I don't rule out the slim possibility that someone somewhere might give thanks and glorify God as God. But Romans 3 seems to suggest that such would be a rare or non-existent possibility.
quote:
Jeff: The scripture says God is longsuffering, but I'm not aware of any verses that say He can suffer infinitely, are you?
Spen: I didn't mean to imply that He will suffer infinitely, I communicated poorly if I gave that impression. I am firmly convinced that He has told us that He will NOT suffer His wrath to be restrained forever.
I'm not convinced that God CAN suffer infinitely. And so when God says He forebears because He wishes to show His wrath, the question arises, why couldn't He just show His wrath now and stop the insanity? Why put it off knowing that tons more evil will occur? But if the verse implies that God truly has a limit of suffering, then the allotted time may be the time wherein God will reach His limit of suffering.
Now this seems to imply an openness to when judgement will come - and that may be problematic, but it's an alternative way of looking at the question. Might the "day and hour" be open? Can the verses be read that way? I'm not sure.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 10/16/2004 3:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Jeff: Now this seems to imply an openness to when judgement will come - and that may be problematic, but it's an alternative way of looking at the question. Might the "day and hour" be open? Can the verses be read that way? I'm not sure.
It has been interesting for me to spend time on this site. I think your comment, "Can the verses be read that way," is a key theme. My observation is that many who look to the OV interpretation of specific verses do so because they don't LIKE the way the verses read. My observation as to "why" they don't like it is that they FEEL it is somehow unjust/mean/failing that God may not act in an identical manner to all people and therefore, through the OV, they read passages to mean that the "non-identical" actions of God towards individuals is due exclusively to the choice of the people. I read these passages another way and ascribe this "non-identical" action of God to "mystery."
I think that this concept can move towards the gospel itself and affect its preaching, which is a concern. I see this happen in the following manner. Both OV and myself agree that only "some" are reconciled to God, although God offers this reconciliation freely to all. Why only some? If the reason is to be found that the many were not persuaded to choose enough, then the problem can be resolved through "marketing." We alter the pitch, packaging, and ultimately the "product" until they choose. If this happens the gospel itself is affected because the message changes until the many can accept and choose it.
Conversely, if the "why" only some choose is left in "mystery," we do not concern ourselves with the why. Instead, we focus on the message. The message itself carries the power to save and "some" will hear it and respond and be reconciled to God. I believe this is because God enables this "some." I will grant that the purity, clarity, and presentation of the message is still a concern, but the focus is on the message, not the marketing to the many for a "choice." A "successful" messenger is the one who delivers the message as it was given, not the one who convinces the most people to choose.
I believe that God does know and has known from eternity. I also beleive that this knowledge is for the most part hidden and that we are to walk forward in faith and trust in our God, trusting in what He has chosen to reveal and this is fully manifested in His Son and His death for us. The OV has self acknowledged "mysteries" as well and fail to answer questions. These questions may be different than the ones I leave in "mystery" but I find them more problematic. Thus, perhaps we both read the scriptures and find what we believe or want to believe written there.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/16/2004 7:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Spen,
disclaimer added after the fact: I assumed by "mystery" you meant not understandable rather than secret. My comments are to be taken accordingly.
quote:
It has been interesting for me to spend time on this site. I think your comment, "Can the verses be read that way," is a key theme.
I don't see how we can get around some interpretation. Every hermeneutic worthy of the name supposes certain principles. When verses interpreted according to hermeneutic principles seem to contradict, it is only natural to question whether we are misunderstanding or whether there is a metaphorical quality to the text.
One of my hermeneutic principles is that human intuition is to be accepted as true. To me it is an epistemological principle not just a hermeneutical one. Obviously, people disagree on what is intuitional, but I don't see how we can question what we believe to be intuitional. After all, God MADE us to think according to those intuitions. Why even debate at all if our intuition of non-contradiction is questionable?
quote:
My observation is that many who look to the OV interpretation of specific verses do so because they don't LIKE the way the verses read. My observation as to "why" they don't like it is that they FEEL it is somehow unjust/mean/failing
I agree with you, but I don't think we should accept mystery without a long, hard seeking of the truth. Some truth is not acquired easily - it requires obedience to what we know and hard work to obtain it according to the scripture.
quote:
that God may not act in an identical manner to all people and therefore, through the OV, they read passages to mean that the "non-identical" actions of God towards individuals is due exclusively to the choice of the people. I read these passages another way and ascribe this "non-identical" action of God to "mystery."
I don't see what's so mysterious about it. If fallen man will not seek or fear God, why is it a mystery that God would elect some for His and His Christ's glory? I think people underestimate the role of doxological ends in our creation.
quote:
Conversely, if the "why" only some choose is left in "mystery," we do not concern ourselves with the why. Instead, we focus on the message. The message itself carries the power to save and "some" will hear it and respond and be reconciled to God. I believe this is because God enables this "some."
But we don't have to appeal to mystery to believe that. The scriptures say it pretty explicitly. To me, one only sees a problem or mystery here if one tries to make ALL divine ends purely benevolent ones, as opposed to doxological ones. How can God's wish to show His wrath be anything but a doxological one? Benevolence does not require it.
We are told to love others AS OURSELVES. In other words, we are not wrong in loving ourselves - even WE are not expected to forego ALL hope and joy for the sake of others. Hence, it seems reasonable to me to accept that God would not do so, either. He will love as much as He can within the bounds of His doxological purposes for our creation. But He will NOT sacrifice His glory for rebels. A rebel can repent and suffer for righteousness' sake with God's Son, or not.
quote:
I believe that God does know and has known from eternity.
To me, this can only be answered by scripture, and hence hermeneutics. Philosophy can not get us there.
quote:
The OV has self acknowledged "mysteries" as well and fail to answer questions.
But there is not merely ONE possible interpretation of OV. A minimal OV does not rule out election or the priority of God's glory.
quote:
These questions may be different than the ones I leave in "mystery" but I find them more problematic.
But "more problematic" has to be measured by some standard. What standard says the Truth is that problematic version of reality which has milder problems? It seems to me that we should keep struggling to eliminate problems AND mystery. I know in my own seeking, many problems that I once had have been overcome. So I try to hang in there in the hope that revealed truth was revealed precisely because it CAN be understood.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/16/2004 3:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Spen,
quote:
You believe that it is proper and healthy to attempt to understand what may appear to us now as "mysteries." I don't disagree with this as long as the rules for the search are legal. Searching for spiritual answers using means or methods that scriptures do not expliclity condone may lead one to things that appear to be "truth" but is deception.
So what in OV hermeneutics do you consider to be illegal rules of interpretation?
quote:
I don't see you leading me this direction. It seems that we are in common in believing that we are commanded to seek the truth in scriptures. How we interpret these scriptures will obviously color the "truth" we find there, especially because we are all falible and therefore our interpretations ar falible. In as much as we love and seek the truth, the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth through the scriptures, all that is necessary for life and godliness.
Yes, and 1 Corinthians seems to suggest that growth in knowledge and wisdom is conditioned by obedience to what we already know. But that suggests to me a bare minimum of what a good hermeneutic ought to recognize. Namely, there is that knowledge which even babes in Christ should be able to understand. This seems to imply that inductive thought is valid - i.e., the simplest interpretation is the best.
(Now what's interesting about this is that Paul told the Corinthians in 1 Cor. that he was STILL not able to give them meat - only milk. This would imply that 1 Cor. is milk, and yet much of what is in 1 Cor. is controversial to this day!)
Also, we are commanded to judge/test new ideas. How else could this be done except by their consistency with what is already known. That suggests the validity of deduction as a rule of hermeneutics. But this only takes us so far, for there are some who think we are to read the OT in light of the NT, while others claim that the inductive thing to do is to read the NT in light of the OT. Some, moreover, think Genesis should be interpreted in light of 20th century science, while other's disagree. So one's hermeneutics has profound implications. So what rules do you think are "legal?"
Or, to be more specific, do you see any hermeneutical violation in seeing God's forbearing evil as being related to God showing His wrath in Rom. 9:22? It seems to me that the verse is purposely relating the two. In other words, God does not JUST show His wrath. He SHOWS it because of having foreborne a sufficient quantity of evil to FEEL it to that degree. Am I way off here?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 10/17/2004 3:17 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Leila
I totally agree with what Selah said about why the Cross is not always sufficient. For me personally, this thread has huge implications for my prayer life. I am not trying to develop an "airtight theodicy," but simply trying to understand this stuff in such a way so I can truly believe that my prayers DO matter and that I am not powerless in fighting a spiritual battle.
Prayers of thanksgiving come easy to me as I have countless blessings in my life. But to be totally honest, when I experience evil -- whether it's worries about my children or others' tragedies or instability in the world -- I feel pretty powerless and prayer often feels like an exercise in futility.
selah: Hi Leila. I think Tom had a very good point when he said quote:
"OK, sure, the Cross doesn’t ‘answer’ everything...but it does ‘relativize’ everything. The Cross has something to say about everything that happens in the world. It’s the all-defining event. Everything is related to it...The Cross might give us a firm answer to the question we’re asking. But if it doesn’t, it still relativizes the question.
This is really important. In fact, I believe it's vital to keep in the forefront of our minds...especially when we pray. In the midst of the darkness and confusion of this fallen world we often don’t feel loved and/or powerful. Yet, we should not be surprised at the evil or instability of the world because scripture told us it would be that way (Jn. 16:33, Mt. 6:34, 1 Jn. 5:19). (btw. If that is in scripture – and we experience it as true – isn’t that just one more reason to believe in scripture?) If so, then I think we can have faith (confident trust) that “Greater is He that is in me than he that’s in the world” (1Jn. 4:4) and press on in our prayers. If the Cross is the fullest expression of both God's love and God's power, we must trust that. Indeed, the Cross relativizes everything. It is the Center.
Another way of saying this is to say that “In Christ”, we really ARE powerful. It’s a reality. That’s the bottom line. Whether or not we feel it cannot be the issue. We probably won’t. We have to accept it as a reality much like we accept that we are fully loved, worthy, and saved. There are times I feel loved – but they are rare. There are times I feel powerful – but they are also rare. There are times where I feel like my prayers are powerless and useless – but the more I fix my eyes on the Cross, the less I feel like that. Tom’s point is well taken because thoughts precede feelings. So, if “Greater” is He that is in me than He that’s in the world is true, I bank on that/fix my thoughts on that. Feelings will come and go.
Hope this helps at least a little.
I have to run,
love
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
Leila
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 10/17/2004 7:41 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hope this helps at least a little.
Yes, Selah; it helps a lot. I always appreciate your posts. Thanks for helping to frame the issue in its proper perspective. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/17/2004 9:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah: I think Tom had a very good point when...
Tom: You have such good taste in...in...
...in IDEAS!
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/20/2004 3:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Ross,
quote:
I have followed alot of your postings on the board and I am having a tough time figuring out what you believe. I can definitely tell that you disagree with Doc and company on some important points.
Can you give me a summary of your disagreements with their view? What beliefs have they embraced that are inexplicable? (I am thinking specifically of your understanding of "election" it seems that you advocate some kind of particular election post-fall)
First of all, let me clarify that I think some of those views are coherent, just unwarranted from reason and scripture.
1) I don't believe that arminianism is philosophically impossible, just that I don't think it is the most conservative reading of scripture.
2) Doc's view on the gap theory is unwarranted biblically in my opinion. His belief that the 6 days of Genesis 1 is allegory needs some explanation for me. Moreover, Moses seems to imply that the angels were created in the 6 days in the sabbath law of the decalogue. His idea about Adam being a vice-regent in the Garden of Eden is impossible for me to get a handle on thus far. What could Adam have possibly done as a soulish human being to conquer the principalities and powers? Maybe Doc believes more about this than I have found in print.
3) I think there are verses that imply that God is not trying to eliminate or minimize evil in all cases. I think God forebears some evil for doxological reasons - like wishing to show His wrath. I just don't think that implies anything negative about God. For God says no man has given unto Him first that it should be recompensed unto him. I.e., God owes no man anything. Man owes God thanks and worship for the good things that God HAS done for them and for BEING GOD. I think that's why the scripture says in more than one place that the beginning of wisdom/knowledge is the FEAR of the Lord. In other words, God should not be fundamentally viewed by us as compasssionate so much as JUST, having created all things for HIS OWN RIGHTEOUS WILL (remember Rom. 3 says Christ's death was necessary for God to JUSTLY justify us). Although, He IS also benevolent and compassoinate. But that benevolence often comes as it did to Job - after much suffering for God's glory/satisfaction.
I do agree with other OV'ers that God HATES evil, and did not originally intend it, and did NOT foreknow it. I believe that God, to accomplish all of His ends, must suffer, as has His Christ, on account of the Fall of Satan/Adam. And that we are to fellowship with that suffering to enter into His joy. And that God would have preferred that the joy would have come about without the suffering. This much, to me, seems fundamental to any sound theodicy.
In short, as far as I can tell God, due to the Fall, may have to choose between evils to accomplish His ends, and those ends may not be such that God minimizes evil (though He certainly doesn't cause gratuitous evil). It may BE that God is minimizing evil, but I don't see how we can know that or that it is necessary. Tom says it follows from the Cross, but since I have trouble with an arminian view of the Cross, that seems problematic to me.
More fundamentally, how can we know that dragging this world of suffering out so long is worth the few that enter into the strait gate (arminianism or not)? If God's glory/satisfaction is the criteria, well that's what I'm saying. But if not, why keep dragging it out? No one I've read on this forum claims to have a clear answer, but the question comes up precisely because it seems so hard to get a handle on from the view that God is more worried about the suffering of humans than His/Christ's glory.
So again, It may BE that God is minimizing evil, but I don't see how we can know that or that it is necessary (YET, at least). I guess I'm just a very parsimonious creature; I like to move forward with some reasonable degree of certainty.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/20/2004 7:41 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
John,
quote:
Could you describe what you perceive to be the "arminian view of the Cross"? Perhaps you mean the "arminian view of the Atonement," but I don't want to assume.
I mean that I think the simplest and most straight-forward reading of scripture about believers is that the vast majority of the elect are so because of a God-caused belief, independent of any volitional act, mental or otherwise.
Wow. I guess I didn't take you for a Calvinist, Jeff. 
I personally don't see why a "God-influenced belief" that requires the consent of the human will to the truth God has revealed to Him is problematic from a scriptural or a logical standpoint.
I'm interested to know what it is that leads you to conclude that "the vast majority of the elect are so because of a God-caused belief, independent of any volitional act, mental or otherwise"? Especially the part about "the vast majority." Do you mean to say that SOME of the elect are able to believe without this divine causation?
(All in the spirit of friendly discussion; I certainly don't mean to put you on the spot, Jeff. I just find your belief on this surprising, if in fact you also hold to the Open View).
Blessings in Christ,
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/21/2004 4:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff-
I appreciate your sharing so honestly in you last post. There’s not much in it I agree with, but hey, that’s OK. It at least fills in a few blanks I had regarding where you stood.
Jeff: 3) I think there are verses that imply that God is not trying to eliminate or minimize evil in all cases. I think God forebears some evil for doxological reasons - like wishing to show His wrath. I just don't think that implies anything negative about God.
Tom: Forbearance of sin and evil doesn’t amount to “not…minimizing it.” When I speak of God always seeking to prevent or minimize evil, I mean across the board, given his purposes for the world, God never works at cross purposes with himself. So if he forbears patiently some evil (as Peter says God does) it’s done in love with a view to achieving his purposes. In other words, God doesn’t put his loving purposes on hold when he forebears evil. We don’t have to claim that God doesn’t always seek to minimize evil to believe he does this. We just have not to define “the good” always as “our” good. I’ve argued on the Carlie thread that sometimes the good of the one and the good of the many/whole are not conjointly achievable/maximizable even for God.
Jeff: For God says no man has given unto Him first that it should be recompensed unto him. I.e., God owes no man anything. Man owes God thanks and worship for the good things that God HAS done for them and for BEING GOD. I think that's why the scripture says in more than one place that the beginning of wisdom/knowledge is the FEAR of the Lord. In other words, God should not be fundamentally viewed by us as compasssionate so much as JUST…
Tom: Yes, humankind owes God “thanks” and “worship.” But to be more specific, humankind owes God what God himself has specifically claimed he wants from him, and THAT is not just thanks, worship, or service, it’s LOVE, Jeff. The first and greatest command it to love the Lord your God. You know this of course. So from this point onward we have to concede as part of this whole package whatever “loving God” entails. That goes for us, for God, for theodicy, for all of it.
I don’t think God should be fundamentally viewed as “just.” Not when Scripture describes God in such categorical terms as Love. God’s just, and never unjust. But just knowing this about God doesn’t tell us what makes the Christian God unique. It’s not fundamentally what God chose to reveal about himself when he came to us in incarnate flesh, Christ.
Jeff: In short, as far as I can tell God, due to the Fall, may have to choose between evils to accomplish His ends…
Tom: Please read the Carlie thread. Depending on how you unpack this, I’d agree. But believing God’s choices might sometimes involve this sort of thing does not amount to denying that with respect to every evil event, God did all he could to prevent/minimize it, so long as the “good” is not always necessarily “my” good.
Jeff: …and those ends may not be such that God minimizes evil (though He certainly doesn't cause gratuitous evil). It may BE that God is minimizing evil, but I don't see how we can know that or that it is necessary. Tom says it follows from the Cross, but since I have trouble with an arminian view of the Cross, that seems problematic to me.
Tom: Why believe God does not cause gratuitous evil? I agree with you that God does not do this. But what is it about God that leads you to conclude this? You’re doing the same kind of reasoning from what you believe IS true about God that I do. That’s what I do when I say the Cross is at the center.
I don’t even know what the Arminian view of the Cross is, Jeff. Honestly, I just am not up that much on the schools of thought.
Jeff: More fundamentally, how can we know that dragging this world of suffering out so long is worth the few that enter into the strait gate (arminianism or not)? If God's glory/satisfaction is the criteria, well that's what I'm saying.
Tom: Saying God’s “glory” is the end (the J. Piper route), the criteria, that defines it all is fine. I appreciate that. And I can affirm it. But it ultimately begs the question, because we still have to say what it is that glorifies God and whether or not it’s the case that everything that happens in fact DOES glorify God. Unless you just assume that “glory” by definition means that the world we actually have brings more glory to God than any other possible world could have, then just saying God’s glory is what it’s all about doesn’t help you know that dragging this world of suffering out so long is worth it.
In addition, you’re back at the same question. If God’s glory is the end goal, then God always seeks to prevent what does NOT glorify him, or to minimize it. Right? That is, he always seeks to maximize his glory! That’s all I’m saying, but I disagree with determinists that everything that happens glorifies God.
So we’re back to the Cross, to the greatest commandment (to love God and our neighbors), and to Christ as the revealer of God. How can we know that dragging this world of suffering out so long is worth it? I have nothing whatsoever to base my answer on other than the Cross.
Jeff: So again, It may BE that God is minimizing evil, but I don't see how we can know that or that it is necessary (YET, at least).
Tom: Assume that God doesn’t cause gratuitous evil, as you say. OK? Then assume that God’s “glory” is THE criteria, the end goal, the thing God is more concerned about than anything else. Just given these (your views), I would argue that God always seeks to prevent evil or minimize it.
Jeff: I mean that I think the simplest and most straight-forward reading of scripture about believers is that the vast majority of the elect are so because of a God-caused belief, independent of any volitional act, mental or otherwise.
Tom: In my view there's nothing simple or straight-forward about this reading of Scripture, but that's the fun of a discussion board, right! If you believe God is the one determining peoples' belief, then you can’t also believe that what God wants from us (as the greatest command makes explicity) is that we LOVE him, for not even God can "determine" that another person love him. If you have a way, some analogy, that makes meaningful in terms we can understand, the notion of “predetermined love,” let’s have it. Make that meaningful to me.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/21/2004 2:41 PM (GMT -6) | | John/Tom,
I've already promised my wife I would quit spending so much time on this forum, so I will have to make my responses very specific and to the point. I can drag the discussion out, I just can't spend LONG periods of time responding. So here is my short version responses.
Concerning my disagreement with arminianism, I would say the whole book of Romans seems to be saying that the human race has not only fallen short of the glory of God, but that most (if not all) of their hearts have been darkened because having known God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave Him thanks (Rom. 1). Romans 3 then seems to say that NOT ONE person seeks God or fears God - at least at the time of it's writing. So let's start with Romans 8:28-30. Theses verses seem to say that those who love God are CALLED according to God's purpose and that those who God CALLS will be glorified. That sounds like an effectual call to me.
Our love for God after our call is purely volitional, which is why it is not always particularly impressive. And I don't rule out the possibility that a human COULD glorify God as God and give thanks, in which case God would reveal Himself to him/her. But Romans, as well as observation, seems to suggest that such is hardly ever the case without conversion to Christianity. The scriptures CERTAINLY do not indicate that God elects, or needs to elect, people to judgement. We're all quite competent in getting there all by ourselves.
Now to the minimizing evil concept. I was arguing with Spen that, as we are to love others AS OUR SELF, God's love may be conditioned by a kind of self love also. The self love of God seems, to me at least, to be implied in His desire for glory and thanks. I have NO PROBLEM saying that God minimizes evil to the extent that He can so long as "the extent that He can" is understood to possibly be qualified by the fact that He has a self love as we do. Thus, the complexity of the creation is one aspect, but His self love is another, I would think.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
| 126 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:07 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 |
|
|