 |
| 
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 10/21/2004 4:40 PM (GMT -6) |   |
www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=505
quote:
Response to #4 | How can people who believe the open view trust a God who doesn’t control the future and doesn’t know for sure what will happen?
It’s true that according to the Open view things can happen in our lives which God didn’t plan or even foreknow with certainty (though he always foreknew they were possible). In this view, trusting in God provides no assurance that everything that happens to us will reflect his divine purposes, for there are other agents who also have power to affect us, just as we have power to affect others. This is admittedly a scary thought. But several considerations will put this fear in perspective.
First, how is the scariness of a view relevant to whether or not it is true? There is no reason to conclude that something is true to the extent that it conforms to our wishes. Indeed, in this case the fact that the Open view doesn’t conform to what we might wish were true actually provides one more reason for thinking that it is true, for as a matter of fact reality rarely conforms to our wishes. If we are honest, our core belief about the world—manifested not by what we say but by what we do—is that this world is sometimes a scary place. Whatever view of God people might embrace they still lock their doors at night.
Second, I do not see how affirming an all-controlling God provides any real comfort in the face of the frightening aspects of the world. Suppose there has been a string of assaults in your neighborhood. You are understandably concerned about your safety and the safety of your children. How does believing that every aggravated assault was ordained by God help you cope with this fear? It would still be a good idea to buy a padlock for your door and bars for your windows. You still know at the core of your being that the world is just as scary with your belief as without it. So what advantage is your belief?
I submit that your belief actually makes the world a scarier place, for two reasons. First, if God controls criminals and these criminals victimize godly and ungodly people alike, then it just might be that God has decided to have one of these criminals victimize you and your family. And if God has ordained their brutality toward you, there is nothing you can do about it. Secondly, if God is the sort of God who is capable of ordaining such evils, then what is the basis of your trust in God?
This assumes that the evil has no possible purpose in the life of a believer. James 1:12 says "Happy is the man who is enduring trial..." The Greek word for trial is peirasmos; its root word being peira. Peira is used in Heb. 11:36 which begins a list of trials believers have endured; i.e. scoffings, scourgings, bonds, jail, death, the sword, sawn in two, etc. These all sound very evil, and yet they were to endure. 1 Cor. 10:13 tells us we will not face any trial that is not common to man and that God will not let us be tried above that which we can bear, and that He is faithful and will provide the way out. When faced with the incredible amount of evil, Job endured and still exclaimed to his wife "What? shall we recieve good at the hand of God and shall we not recieve evil?"
Is not evil a test of our faith? If we assume that evil is random, unbridled, and without a purpose, then yes, we should be afraid. But if we trust that through the testing of our faith, we develop endurance (James 1:3) and that God will never allow us to be overwhelmed while providing a way out, then we can faithfully endure all trials of evil in which we will experience in this evil age.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/22/2004 3:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc’s reply doesn’t assume that evil can serve no purpose. God can bring good out of evil situations. In fact, I think God is always responding to evil this way. The question is what comes logically first. Is the evil specifically determined by God for some good reason (in which case the evil God plans is, logically speaking, a response to the good which requires it)? Or is whatever good God brings out of evil situations simply God response to evil? In the former we would say the “purpose of evil is good.” In the latter we recognize the purpose of evil is always evil and that it’s God working at cross-purposes with evil who brings good out of the situation.
Remember too that given an all-determining and unconditional decree, all evil is decreed for some good, but not necessarily the good of the person who suffers the evil. It’s plainly true that some evil ends up making some people bitter and unbelieving and they end up dying in their unbelief. A theological determinist would argue this was precisely what was determined for them. You’d argue it was determined for them by preceding causes which God “had a hand in” (from another thread) and used to determine their disposition which determined their bitter and unbelieving response to evil. In the end, whatever happens was determined to happen as it happened. So for determinists of THIS type (to whom Doc is responding), the world is no less scary and unsettling (maybe more so) than it is for open theists.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 10/27/2004 7:55 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Doc’s reply doesn’t assume that evil can serve no purpose. God can bring good out of evil situations. In fact, I think God is always responding to evil this way. The question is what comes logically first. Is the evil specifically determined by God for some good reason (in which case the evil God plans is, logically speaking, a response to the good which requires it)? Or is whatever good God brings out of evil situations simply God response to evil? In the former we would say the “purpose of evil is good.” In the latter we recognize the purpose of evil is always evil and that it’s God working at cross-purposes with evil who brings good out of the situation.
I am not sure of your stand concerning God's foreknowledge, but this makes it sound like God can only react to something after it has happened. God can only react to evil after it has taken place. This contradicts what the bible teaches of God's knowledge especially in the case of Jesus' death on the cross.
I am contending that God's purpose for mankind is ultimately for the good of mankind. God must have a purpose for allowing evil in the world, even though it appears to be uncontrolled. Why should we assume that the evil that happens to a saved person "may" have a purpose but the evil that happens to an unsaved person is only random, uncontrolled evil?
quote:
Remember too that given an all-determining and unconditional decree, all evil is decreed for some good, but not necessarily the good of the person who suffers the evil. It’s plainly true that some evil ends up making some people bitter and unbelieving and they end up dying in their unbelief. A theological determinist would argue this was precisely what was determined for them. You’d argue it was determined for them by preceding causes which God “had a hand in” (from another thread) and used to determine their disposition which determined their bitter and unbelieving response to evil. In the end, whatever happens was determined to happen as it happened. So for determinists of THIS type (to whom Doc is responding), the world is no less scary and unsettling (maybe more so) than it is for open theists.
If I believed that those who die in unbelief during this era are just condemned to hell for their lifetime of sins, then I would agree with what you are saying. But I don't believe that God takes this "Oh well" approach to mankind.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/27/2004 12:55 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom: God can bring good out of evil situations. The question is what comes logically first. Is the evil specifically determined by God for some good reason (in which case the evil God plans is, logically speaking, a response to the good which requires it)? Or is whatever good God brings out of evil situations simply God response to evil? In the former we would say the “purpose of evil is good.” In the latter we recognize the purpose of evil is always evil and that it’s God working at cross-purposes with evil who brings good out of the situation.
Lock: I am not sure of your stand concerning God's foreknowledge…
You don’t know MY view on divine foreknowledge? How long have you been around here! That’s funny. Well, it may come as a surprise  , I’m an open theist. God’s knowledge of all things (including things future, both determinate and indeterminate) is exhaustive, infallible, and immediate.
quote:
Lock: …but this makes it sound like God can only react to something after it has happened.
Of course God can only react/respond to something after it’s occurred. Can one react/respond to an event before it occurs? A “reaction” (or a “response”), by definition, can only be made after that which is responded to has occurred. We can make plans to respond to future events, by we cannot actually make that response before its time. In the case of events which are determinate to come occur (and known by God as such), I don’t doubt that God has determined responses prepared to give to these events after they occur. In the case of indeterminate events (which are known by God as such), however, God may determine what his response to such events would be just in case they happen, but the actual giving of the response can’t be determinate if the event that is responded TO is indeterminate.
quote:
Lock: ...[that] God can only react to evil after it has taken place. This contradicts what the bible teaches of God's knowledge especially in the case of Jesus' death on the cross.
This is just an impossible view of reality, Lock. God can’t actually react to evil (or anything else) before it occurs. The arrow of time runs one-way. God’s got to wait for event X to occur before he can actually respond to X. If it’s determinately the case that X occur, then God can determine what his response will be when X occurs. But if it’s indeterminately the case that X occur, then God can only determine contingency responses for X and X's related circumstances.
So, when it became determinately the case that Jesus would die, God knew Christ “would” die. But before that event was in fact determinately the case, God knew what WAS the case, namely, that Christ “might and might not” die. I don’t know when the crucifixion was determinate. Open theists don’t all agree on this and that’s not to their discredit. The passages that suggest the crucifixion was fixed before creation may plausibly be understood on the open view as the loving determination of a contingency plan.
quote:
Lock: I am contending that God's purpose for mankind is ultimately for the good of mankind. God must have a purpose for allowing evil in the world, even though it appears to be uncontrolled. Why should we assume that the evil that happens to a saved person "may" have a purpose but the evil that happens to an unsaved person is only random, uncontrolled evil?
I have absolutely no idea what you’re saying. But I’ll attempt a guess. (1) I agree that God’s purposes for humankind are good. (2) I agree that God has a purpose for—watch the wording—creating a world in which evil was possible. This is not the same thing as your saying “God must have a purpose for allowing evil in the world.” Sounds to me like you’re saying God has a purpose FOR the evil he allows, i.e., there’s a specific divine purpose for each specific evil. I see things differently. I think God’s “allowing [the possibility of] evil” is a necessary consequence of the choice to create us to love and relate to him and one another personally. That kind of love, I agree, entails the freedom to say 'yes' and 'no' to God, and that kind of freedom entails risk, even for God. Have you read Greg's books? As for your (3), I don't assume that that the evil that happens to a saved person "may" have a purpose while the evil that happens to an unsaved person is only random, uncontrolled evil. Not sure where you got that idea. It's not mine. Your wording tells me you are probably minunderstanding what my view on all this is. I don't at all divide things this way. What about one and the same evil event which occurs in the lives of a believer and an unbeliever symultaneously (like their being together in the same care that is hit head on by a drunken driver)? I wouldn't say this is random uncontrolled evil for the unbeliever but "may" be purposeful for the believer. I think it might just be a random accident for both and that God responds by wanting to bring good out of it for both. I think that in WHATEVER evil occurs in ANYBODY'S (saved or unsaved) life, God is present and prepared to work with whoever will open up to God in working at cross-purposes with evil to take what what's happened and bring something good out of it. But, the good that comes about as a result of God working in response to evil does not necessarily define the PURPOSE of the evil. It's not the evil that is purposeful, but rather God working in response to evil that is purposeful. The good that comes about, then, comes at cross-purposes with evil. This is where you may be misundertanding my view. I think God is redemptively at work everywhere, committed to bringing about his purposes wherever they can be brought to pass.
quote:
Lock: If I believed that those who die in unbelief during this era are just condemned to hell for their lifetime of sins, then I would agree with what you are saying. But I don't believe that God takes this "Oh well" approach to mankind.
So it’s between a “universalistic God” or an “Oh-well God”? Why polarize the options unnecessarily? I don’t think God takes an “oh well” approach to the world either. He died for the world, hardly an “Oh well” approach. But agreeing that God’s attitude toward the world is not an “Oh well” attitude doesn’t mean accepting universalism. There may be circumstances OTHER than a divine “Oh well” approach to the world under which not all will be saved.
Read Jerry Walls' Hell: The Logic of Damnation. You won't agree with it (he's not a universalist), but hopefully you'll not characterize non-universalistic approaches to the world as "Oh well" approaches.
Oh well,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 10/28/2004 3:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom-
My post was confusing, in that when I said "react" I was thinking along the lines of your response of the plan. It appears that you agree that God has a knowledge of future events and knows how and when to react to them. This was my intention also. As far as the Oh well approach, I may have to read the book you suggested, but I once held to the belief of eternal torment and then annihilation. It was not the idea of universal reconciliation that convinced me, but how illogical eternal seperation from God is. Eternal punishment for a lifetime of sins. This is not even logical in human terms. God created man in His own image, only to destroy a majority of them, and this is to display His love? God's purpose is to be All in All. Can this be accompished if a majority of the All is eternally punished or destroyed? I will read the book you suggested, but in return please read this short tract 15 Bombs That Sank My Theological Ship found at this link...
www.saviour-of-all.org/fifteenbombs.html
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
SwanLake
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 10/28/2004 5:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
[www.saviour-of-all.org/fifteenbombs.html
Let's look at a few of these fifteen wet firecrackers....
quote:
1 If God will have all men to be saved, and if most men are lost, then how can God be supreme (1 Tim.2:3,4)?
Supreme means
su·preme adj.
Greatest in power, authority, or rank; paramount or dominant.
Greatest in importance, degree, significance, character, or achievement.
Ultimate; final: the supreme sacrifice.
Where is "meticulous control" mentioned here?
The supreme, greatest in power in Rome in 44 BC was Julius Caesar and his desire was to stay alive yet some of his subjects assassinated him. The supreme didn't get his wish.
If God overrides the wills of His subjects in order to fulfill His desires He isn't supreme anymore, not unless you redefine love to mean "brute force".
quote:
2 If Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world, did He die in vain for the lost (1 John 2:2)?
Did Jesus die once for each person? Say, did Jesus die 15 billion deaths for the 15 billion people who will have ever lived?
And if only 2 billion of those accept His free gift, then He wasted 13 billion of those deaths on the crosses?
He died ONCE, which is sufficient for ANY and ALL. If ALL don't accept the free gift, it doesn't subtract from the efficacy of His singular death.
If I have the economic power to buy my daughter an expensive gift, and she doesn't accept the gift, does that mean my economic power is not powerful enough?
The singular event of the crucifixion is not mathematics.
quote:
If "forever" means "eternity" what does "forever and ever" mean?
LOL, and if "I love you VERY much" means "I love you very much", what does "I love you VERY VERY VERY much" mean?
You're building a case for universalism upon the imprecise boundaries of natural languages? 
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/28/2004 12:15 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Lock: My post was confusing, in that when I said "react" I was thinking along the lines of your response of the plan. It appears that you agree that God has a knowledge of future events and knows how and when to react to them.
I’m glad to see someone acknowledge this may be the case given the open view.
quote:
Lock: It was not the idea of universal reconciliation that convinced me, but how illogical eternal seperation from God is. Eternal punishment for a lifetime of sins. This is not even logical in human terms.
I can appreciate that. I think Walls does a fair job addressing this concern. But you know, what seems even more illogical to me is a guaranteed relationship of love that God determines for others. They play no role in determining themselves in relation to God. I’m still waiting for an adequate explanation of the role of libertarian free will in the guarantee of universal salvation.
quote:
Lock: God created man in His own image, only to destroy a majority of them, and this is to display His love?
You’ll have to ask a Calvinist that question, Lock. I can’t help you out there.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:18 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 |
|
|