 |
 | 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/23/2004 9:56 AM (GMT -6) |   | I haven't mentioned feelings. You keep mentioning them. You're irrational Lock. Get a grip.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 11/23/2004 1:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Wicker and Tom-
I am still waiting for sustantial biblical backing for your view of the human will. Direct teaching from the bible stating that we posess a free will as oppossed to...
Rom. 6:18
"Now being freed from sin, you are ENSLAVED to righteousness"
Rom. 6:20
"For when you were SLAVES OF SIN, you were free as to righteousness"
Rom. 6:22
"Yet, now, being freed from sin, YET ENSLAVED TO GOD"
Rom. 7:5-6
"For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins, which were through the law, operated in our members to be bearing fruit to death. Yet now we were exempted from the law, dying in that in which we were retained, so that it is for us to be SLAVING in newness of spirit and not oldness of letter."
Rom. 7:25
"I myself, with the mind indeed, am SLAVING for God's law, yet with the flesh for sin's law."
Rom. 8:5
"For those who are in accord with the flesh are disposed to that which is of the flesh, yet those who are in accord with spirit to that which is of the spirit."
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 | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/23/2004 1:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi lock,
It is the very presupposition of a "causal chain" that leads you down the path of determinism.
As to the basic division of people into those in slavery to sin and those in slavery to God, I agree. But note, Romans 6 plainly says that
Romans 6:16 Do you not know that to whom you present* yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?
*To "present oneself" to something (or someone) is to voluntarily submit to that something (or someone).
17But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart* that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
* This clearly speaks of repentance, the deliberative, volitional, intelligent ACT, by what is commonly referred to as "free will."
So while it is clear that one is either a slave of sin or a slave of righteousness, it is equally as clear that such slavery is voluntary in nature.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 11/23/2004 2:19 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
Hi lock,
It is the very presupposition of a "causal chain" that leads you down the path of determinism.
As to the basic division of people into those in slavery to sin and those in slavery to God, I agree. But note, Romans 6 plainly says that
Romans 6:16 Do you not know that to whom you present* yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?
*To "present oneself" to something (or someone) is to voluntarily submit to that something (or someone).
17But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart* that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
* This clearly speaks of repentance, the deliberative, volitional, intelligent ACT, by what is commonly referred to as "free will."
So while it is clear that one is either a slave of sin or a slave of righteousness, it is equally as clear that such slavery is voluntary in nature.
John
Hello John-
Thank you for responding with scriptural reference.
Here is in Romans 6, is Paul speaking of a saved or unsaved person?
Looking at the context verse 4 speaks of us dying with, being entombed with and being roused with Christ.
Verse 12 and 13 "Let not sin, then be reigning in your mortal body, for you to be obeying its lusts. Nor yet be presenting your members as implements of injustice, to sin, but present yourselves to God as if alive from among the dead, and your members as implements of righteousness."
You can't read verse 17 without verse 18...
"Now thanks be to God that you were slaves of sin, yet you obey from the heart the type of teaching to which you were given over, NOW, BEING FREED FROM SIN, YOU ARE ENSLAVED TO RIGHTEOUSNESS."
We are able to obey from the heart because we have been set from from the slavery of sin. We died, were buried and roused again in Christ and are living in newness of life, slaving for righteousness, not presenting our members as implements of unrigheousness. This doesn't speak of the process of being saved, but how we are to live upon being saved.
Whereas Romans 7:5 speaks of before a person is saved...
"For, when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins, which were through the law, operated in our members to be bearing fruit to death."
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 | | |
|
Cottonman
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 11/23/2004 2:24 PM (GMT -6) | | TGB,
I find it rather amazing that you accuse me of refusing to answer questions, dear sir! I started this nonsense with questions, as of yet they remain unanswered. Here is another such question:
Why is it that OVT will admit the inadequacy of analogies on one hand, but on the other they will not budge when it comes to the parent-child analogy. No one has answered my analogy. Here is a more realistic analogy. It is even a parent-child analogy so I am sure that you'll like it.
I set my child in a bathtub full of water and give him a live toaster. I warn him NOT to drop the toaster into the water. Next I stand back and throw a ball at him. He drops the toaster and dies.
This analogy has all of the elements you affirm, such as love and risk. However, it shows the stupidity of presenting an inocent child with these options.
I will be clear here: I started this thread with QUESTIONS, there has not even been a hint of an answer on your part or anyone else's. So do not attempt to accuse me of unanswering your questions. If what you claim is the gospel, it does not need counter claims in order to stand. If God took risks, we do not need a risk-free model of providence to set it against.
This is the very reason why I left this thread. No one cares to answer my questions. I will say it again with all sincerity: If OVT has truth to offer, I want in on it. PLEASE help me with this issue. If this is impossible to do without posing a rhetorical question to me, we are at an impass. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/23/2004 3:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: The analogy WOULD be meaningless to a true compatibilist, because a compatibilistically determined individual does not actually CHOOSE to have children.
Tom: Thank you Jeff!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/23/2004 3:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Cotton: I find it rather amazing that you accuse me of refusing to answer questions, dear sir!
Tom: I didn’t say you wouldn’t answer any question. I referred specifically to two questions: 1) Do you or do you not recognize that in having children you expose them to risks? and 2) Why do you have children in spite of the risks? You’re not answering these.
Cotton: Why is it that OVT will admit the inadequacy of analogies on one hand, but on the other they will not budge when it comes to the parent-child analogy.
Tom: The OVT admits the inadequacy of all analogies? That’s news to me. Why should all analogies be inadequate?
Cotton: No one has answered my analogy. Here is a more realistic analogy. It is even a parent-child analogy so I am sure that you'll like it. I set my child in a bathtub full of water and give him a live toaster. I warn him NOT to drop the toaster into the water. Next I stand back and throw a ball at him. He drops the toaster and dies.
Tom: This is a rotten analogy. No loving, sane parent would do this and this is precisely UNLIKE the granting of libertarian free will.
Cotton: This analogy has all of the elements you affirm, such as love and risk. However, it shows the stupidity of presenting an inocent child with these options.
Tom: It doesn’t have love. It’s not loving to set a toddler in a bath of water holding a toaster and toss a ball at him. That’s not analogous to what God does in creating us with LFW. Nor is it analogous to what we do in exposing our children to risk in choosing to have them.
Cotton: I will be clear here: I started this thread with QUESTIONS, there has not even been a hint of an answer on your part or anyone else's. So do not attempt to accuse me of unanswering your questions.
Tom: Two questions, Cotton. Two (2), t-w-o. I didn’t accuse you of not answering questions at all. And I did answer your questions. You didn’t like my answers and refused to accept them as answers, telling me I should go find other answers. But I don’t have any other answers. So, Cotton, say you don’t like my answers, that they don’t work for you, and that you conclude that libertarian free will does not exist, but don’t say I didn’t answer you.
Cotton: If what you claim is the gospel, it does not need counter claims in order to stand. If God took risks, we do not need a risk-free model of providence to set it against.
Tom: My goodness. Cotton, we’re not talking about the gospel. The good news is, we can disagree about whether or not divine providence involves risk or not, or about whether we have LFW or not, but still agree that God in love and mercy sent Christ to save us. This was my earlier point about attributing the right ‘relevance’ to this debate. The gospel cannot, it simply cannot, boil down to any ONE view of providence, for this would mean all those who are theologically wrong on providence miss the gospel.
I tried to explain why I thought it was important to juxtapose differing views. It’s a helpful thing to do, Cotton. When counter-claims are in the air it becomes the right way to discuss. Why you want to frame the discussion in such narrow terms is beyond me.
Cotton: This is the very reason why I left this thread. No one cares to answer my questions. I will say it again with all sincerity: If OVT has truth to offer, I want in on it. PLEASE help me with this issue. If this is impossible to do without posing a rhetorical question to me, we are at an impass.
Tom: I can’t think of any rhetorical questions I’ve asked.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
the Wicker Man
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 73
| Posted 11/23/2004 3:49 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
Wicker and Tom-
I am still waiting for sustantial biblical backing for your view of the human will. Direct teaching from the bible stating that we posess a free will as oppossed to...
I've presented plenty, you just ignore them.
quote:
Rom. 6:18
"Now being freed from sin, you are ENSLAVED to righteousness"
Rom. 6:20
"For when you were SLAVES OF SIN, you were free as to righteousness"
Rom. 6:22
"Yet, now, being freed from sin, YET ENSLAVED TO GOD"
Rom. 7:5-6
"For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins, which were through the law, operated in our members to be bearing fruit to death. Yet now we were exempted from the law, dying in that in which we were retained, so that it is for us to be SLAVING in newness of spirit and not oldness of letter."
Rom. 7:25
"I myself, with the mind indeed, am SLAVING for God's law, yet with the flesh for sin's law."
Rom. 8:5
"For those who are in accord with the flesh are disposed to that which is of the flesh, yet those who are in accord with spirit to that which is of the spirit."
Romans 6:12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
"do not let sin reign (as you did before you became a believer)" -- imperative, free will
"do not go on presenting (as you did before you became a believer)" -- imperative, free will
"present yourselves to God" -- imperative, free will
Romans 6:14 For sin shall not be master over you(just like Cain was told to master it), for you are not under law but under grace.
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
verse 16 tells how we became slaves, we PRESENTED ourselves to someone as slaves. AND it tells what we are to do, PRESENT ourselves as slaves to obedience. No one made you a slave to sin, you PRESENTED yourself as a slave to sin. No one made you a slave of righteousness, you PRESENTED yourself as a slave to righteousness.
17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed
"you became obedient (volitional verb)" -- free will
"you were committed (volitional verb)" -- free will
Romans 6:19 "I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification."
"you presented (volitional verb) your members as slaves" -- free will
"present (imperative verb) your members as slaves" -- free will
verse 19 tells how we became slaves, we PRESENTED ourselves to someone as slaves. AND it tells what we are to do, PRESENT ourselves as slaves to obedience. No one made you a slave to sin, you PRESENTED yourself as a slave to sin. No one made you a slave of righteousness, you PRESENTED yourself as a slave to righteousness.
Ezekial 5:
5 "Thus says the Lord GOD, 'This is Jerusalem; I have set her at the center of the nations, with lands around her.
6 'But she has rebelled against My ordinances more wickedly than the nations and against My statutes more than the lands which surround her; for they have rejected My ordinances and have not walked in My statutes.'
7 "Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, 'Because you have more turmoil than the nations which surround you and have not walked in My statutes, nor observed My ordinances, nor observed the ordinances of the nations which surround you,'
8 therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, 'Behold, I, even I, am against you, and I will execute judgments among you in the sight of the nations.
9 'And because of all your abominations, I will do among you what I have not done, and the like of which I will never do again.
Israel rebelling against God -- free will
Isaiah 5:1 Let me sing now for my well-beloved
A song of my beloved concerning His vineyard.
My well-beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill.
2 He dug it all around, removed its stones,
And planted it with the choicest vine.
And He built a tower in the middle of it
And also hewed out a wine vat in it;
Then He expected it to produce good grapes,
But it produced only worthless ones.
3 "And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,
Judge between Me and My vineyard.
4 "What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it?
Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones? -- free will
Ezekiel 18
1 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
2 "What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying,
'The fathers eat the sour grapes,
But the children's teeth are set on edge'?
3 "As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore.
4 "Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die.
5 "But if a man is righteous and practices justice and righteousness,
6 and does not eat at the mountain shrines or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, or defile his neighbor's wife or approach a woman during her menstrual period--
7 if a man does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, does not commit robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with clothing,
8 if he does not lend money on interest or take increase, if he keeps his hand from iniquity and executes true justice between man and man,
9 if he walks in My statutes and My ordinances so as to deal faithfully--he is righteous and will surely live," declares the Lord GOD.
volitional presentation towards righteousness (Romans 6)
10 "Then he may have a violent son who sheds blood and who does any of these things to a brother
11 (though he himself did not do any of these things), that is, he even eats at the mountain shrines, and defiles his neighbor's wife,
12 oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore a pledge, but lifts up his eyes to the idols and commits abomination,
13 he lends money on interest and takes increase; will he live? He will not live! He has committed all these abominations, he will surely be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.
volitional presentation towards sinfulness (Romans 6)
14 "Now behold, he has a son who has observed all his father's sins which he committed, and observing does not do likewise.
15 "He does not eat at the mountain shrines or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, or defile his neighbor's wife,
16 or oppress anyone, or retain a pledge, or commit robbery, but he gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with clothing,
17 he keeps his hand from the poor, does not take interest or increase, but executes My ordinances, and walks in My statutes; he will not die for his father's iniquity, he will surely live.
volitional presentation towards righteousness (Romans 6)
18 "As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was not good among his people, behold, he will die for his iniquity.
volitional presentation towards sinfulness (Romans 6)
19 "Yet you say, 'Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity?' When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live.
volitional presentation towards righteousness (Romans 6)
20 "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
21 "But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
22 "All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of his righteousness which he has practiced, he will live.
volitional presentation towards righteousness (Romans 6)
23 "Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?
24 "But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die.
volitional presentation towards sinfulness (Romans 6)
25 "Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Hear now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?
26 "When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and dies because of it, for his iniquity which he has committed he will die.
volitional presentation towards sinfulness (Romans 6)
27 "Again, when a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life.
28 "Because he considered and turned away from all his transgressions which he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
volitional presentation towards righteousness (Romans 6)
29 "But the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Are My ways not right, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are not right?
30 "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct," declares the Lord GOD. "Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you.
31 "Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel?
32 "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord GOD. "Therefore, repent and live."
volitional presentation towards righteousness (Romans 6)
uromancer to the stars | | Back to Top | | |
|
the Wicker Man
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 73
| Posted 11/23/2004 5:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Genesis 4:
6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?
7 "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."
Cain was told he must master his anger and sin. Here's what God had in mind:
Romans 6:
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
We are told to
1. not let sin reign in our body
2. not continue presenting our body to sin
3. present ourselves to God
Verse 16, the presentation of ourselves precedes our slavery.
We can choose an obedience of slavery to sin or an obedience of slavery to righteouness.
uromancer to the stars | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/23/2004 8:41 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by borg
Romans is speaking to believers, whom the Lord Jesus had set free. No longer did they live under the law but under grace, meaning they were free to obey the commandments of the Lord. They had a liberty to obey, unlike nonbelievers.
Yes, but the inspired text also says plainly, that though you were slaves of sin, you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine..., and having been set free from sin, you became servants of righteousness. (It appears that the text itself disagrees with the idea that they had no power to submit, in their regenerated state, when confronted with the truth of the gospel.
quote:
They had a liberty to obey, unlike nonbelievers.
So unbelievers can't help it if they are child molesters, while believers who are child molesters can?
In any case, Open Theists generally subscribe to the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace, whereby sinners are in kindness led to repentance, so the idea that people can "in and of themselves" just repent, without the message of the interposition of the Holy Spirit, is simply not what Open Theism teaches.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
the Wicker Man
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 73
| Posted 11/24/2004 1:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by borg
Romans is speaking to believers
Paul was also speaking about their former state, in fact, parallelling them:
Romans 6:16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
Note the parallel, he speaks of both their former state and their current state.
Formerly they had presented themselves as slaves for obedience of sin, now they are to present themselves as slaves for obedience resulting in righteousness.
Romans 6:17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
To become free from their obedient slavery to sin, they committed themselves to the gospel and became obedient from the heart. Of course, God honored their committment and obedience and freed them from their slavery to sin.
Romans 6:19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.
Note the parallel, JUST as they had presented themselves as slaves to sin, NOW ("JUST AS" == in the same manner) present yourselves as slaves to righteousness.
Their former presentation of themselves towards obedience to slavery to sin was their responsibility. The same responsibility they have to now present themselves towards obedience to slavery to righteousness.
uromancer to the stars | | Back to Top | | |
|
Cottonman
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 11/24/2004 5:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: I didn’t say you wouldn’t answer any question. I referred specifically to two questions: 1) Do you or do you not recognize that in having children you expose them to risks? and 2) Why do you have children in spite of the risks? You’re not answering these.
________________________________________________________________
The reason that I will not answer them is two-fold:
1)I know without a doubt what your response will be
2)The analogy is improperly indexed at best and impossible to index at worst. I do not believe it is impossible to index, otherwise I would be Neo-Orthodox and would have to throw out oudles of scripture. I do, however, believe it to be improperly indexed in that it is carried over to the wrong elements of God's nature and His action within the world. My reasons for saying this are clear: It cannot stand if we are to say that God is good, loving and smart. This is not a broad sweeping statement, but I have argued this from the beginning, as I am sure you are aware.
___________________________________________________________________
Tom: The OVT admits the inadequacy of all analogies? That’s news to me. Why should all analogies be inadequate?
___________________________________________________________________
You claim God as a father. Who did God have sex with? or who had sex to develope Adam? If God is not my father in this sense, you have admitted a limit on your analogy. I believe the limit ends there in your mind, however. That is my contention with OVT. In fact, I would affirm that is what your theology of risk flows out of. Show me I am wrong.
_____________________________________________________________________
Tom: This is a rotten analogy. No loving, sane parent would do this and this is precisely UNLIKE the granting of libertarian free will.
_____________________________________________________________________
Precisely to the first sentance! But boo and hiss to the second. So is the idea of LFW! Now you know how I see it. Show me I am wrong. PLEASE.
_____________________________________________________________________
Tom: It doesn’t have love. It’s not loving to set a toddler in a bath of water holding a toaster and toss a ball at him. That’s not analogous to what God does in creating us with LFW. Nor is it analogous to what we do in exposing our children to risk in choosing to have them.
_____________________________________________________________________
Precisely! Neither does the idea of LFW! Now you know how I see it. How is it not analogous? Show me I am wrong. PLEASE.
_____________________________________________________________________
Tom: Two questions, Cotton. Two (2), t-w-o. I didn’t accuse you of not answering questions at all. And I did answer your questions. You didn’t like my answers and refused to accept them as answers, telling me I should go find other answers. But I don’t have any other answers. So, Cotton, say you don’t like my answers, that they don’t work for you, and that you conclude that libertarian free will does not exist, but don’t say I didn’t answer you.
_____________________________________________________________________
Your are correct. I'm sorry, please forgive me. You've caught me in a fallacy. I stand ashamed. I do, however, wish that you had more answers. It not that they don't work for me, it's that they don't work! That has been my purpose in starting this thread, although I have gone about it wrong all along. Forgive me.
_____________________________________________________________________
Tom: My goodness. Cotton, we’re not talking about the gospel. The good news is, we can disagree about whether or not divine providence involves risk or not, or about whether we have LFW or not, but still agree that God in love and mercy sent Christ to save us. This was my earlier point about attributing the right ‘relevance’ to this debate. The gospel cannot, it simply cannot, boil down to any ONE view of providence, for this would mean all those who are theologically wrong on providence miss the gospel.
_____________________________________________________________________
Sorry, but I believe that God's action is central to the gospel, as I am sure you do. In order for you to say that "we" can affirm the same things, you MUST qualify that. We can ARRIVE at the same things (praise God), but we do not have the same starting point. This is all assuming I am Reformed or that I have opinions on this matter. I have only stated my problems and where I am leaning, not where I stand. At the same time, I am not denying that I have a stance, nor that it is not a strong stance. Which leads me to my next point.
_____________________________________________________________________
Tom: I tried to explain why I thought it was important to juxtapose differing views. It’s a helpful thing to do, Cotton. When counter-claims are in the air it becomes the right way to discuss. Why you want to frame the discussion in such narrow terms is beyond me.
_____________________________________________________________________
The reason I want to frame it as such is that you and others have "canned" arguments for the Reformed position and others that go against your own. In framing it as such I desired to find someone intelligent, someone like you Tom. Your presuppositions do not need contrary ones in order to stand, that is if they are true. Nor do mine if they are true. Nor do the Buddhist's if his are true. Nor do the atheist's if his are true. Granted, it is helpful. But it is not necessary. This is the very reason why Boyd is going back to the church fathers and seeking to establish the historicity of risk theology, if I am not mistaken.
Lastly, I desire to get away from bickering. Its not good for either one of us. Once again I feel like we are two old men in a five star nursing home bitching over who is to get the last cup of pudding. Let us leave the methodological questions behind. Unless of course one of us puts the other one in an unfair position and it must be addressed.
Thank you so much and may God grant the power of the Spirit of the Risen Christ to be with your spirit to convict, reform, enlighten, quicken, justify and guide on a daily basis. I pray the same for myself and all who enter into reading this thread. | | Back to Top | | |
|
the Wicker Man
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 73
| Posted 11/24/2004 5:54 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Cottonman
You claim God as a father. Who did God have sex with? or who had sex to develope Adam? If God is not my father in this sense, you have admitted a limit on your analogy.
Jesus invented the "God as father" analogy, not us. He claimed God as Father.
Jesus invented the bride/groom/marriage analogy, not us.
He used these analogies because (most of us) would understand them.
"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he won't give him a snake instead of a fish, will he?" Luke 11:11
Your problem, cottonman, is your refusal to answer our questions about risk.
You risk death every time you ride in a car or on an airplane, yet you deem the benefit of those as outweighing the risk of death.
You betray your belief by your actions.
uromancer to the stars | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/24/2004 6:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Cotton-
We've met before on this discussion board, no? 
That we take risks for the sake of love in having children is a fact not open for debate. It's there. That half of the analogy is indisputable.
Now, it's not this fact which I use as an analogy to prove that God took risks in creating us for the sake of love. You keep arguing I haven't proved this. I'm not trying to prove it. All I'm trying to show is the intelligibility of it, that is, the meaningfulness of the claim that God took risks in creating us and did so because his purposes for us were loving and relational.
You can disagree that God's purposes were loving and relational, and you can disagree that such purposes require libertarian free will, but you can't claim that the claim that God created a risk-filled world and did so for the sake of love is not a meaningful claim. It is. Our own experience of risk for the sake of love MAKES it a meaningful claim. We DO understand that some risks are worth taking for the sake of love because we DO take risks for the sake of love. Again, I'm not saying the analogy proves that God took risks in creating us and did so for the sake of love. All I've been saying is that our experience of risk for the sake of love makes SENSE of the claim that God took risks for the sake of love.
By the way, your dismissal of the Biblical metaphor of "Father" for God is astounding. But you're an astounding sort of guy, Cotton!
Take care,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Cottonman
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 11/24/2004 10:13 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB (& the other guy who said that Jesus invented the father analogy),
Forgive me if I do not respond to your argument regarding risks and children. It is EXACTLY what I expected and my response is located in my posts. I don't mean to be smug in saying this, but I have no time to go over what I took pains to go over already.
Tom: By the way, your dismissal of the Biblical metaphor of "Father" for God is astounding. But you're an astounding sort of guy, Cotton!
Ah...Thanks? I have not dimissed the metaphor of God as Father, nor will I dismiss it. It is a good one. However, your saying that I've dismissed it betrays your understanding of it, simply because I will not take it as far as you have. You have a fundamentalist spirit here, or so it seems. You SEEM to be saying that since I've dismissed your far-reaching implications, I've dismissed the entire analogy; tell me that is not the spirit of fundamentalism. God is the everlasting Father, but not in every sense the same as we are fathers. You would no doubt agree with this, and have agreed with it. If the concept of an eternal essense can be ascribed to the eternal Father and not us, show me why the concept of risk cannot be catagorized in the same way. This is why the parent/child analogy fails in this instance (there are many more reasons, but this is one among many).
To the other guy (potterybarn man or something):
Go back and read what I've said about the Father analogy. I quoted the exact same verse you did, except maybe in a different synoptic. That verse is the force of my agrument. In the future I will thank you for being a tad more informed before you seek to destroy my arguments in a few sentences. I'll appreciate thoughtful, informed responses very much, that is if they add something to the discussion.
I hope everyone will have a good thanksgiving and remember that who we are thankful toward is much more important than what we are thankful for. | | Back to Top | | |
| 184 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:40 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 |
|
|