 |
| 
Cottonman
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 11/9/2004 10:35 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hi,
My name is Cottonmat...er cottonman as you can see. I like cool walks by coffee and warm nights with river. 
I am just wondering why, if we are given free will, is God not culpable for this cataclysm of godless, pointless, gratuitous evil. God seemeth to give an egregious and volitile gift to humanity. Obviously humanity did a piss poor job with it.
We seem to have two options
1) God is retarded
2) God deems the possibility of evil, and hence the existance of evil, to be better than no world where libertarian free will exists.
Number 1 should not be dismissed offhandedly, and number 2 seems to sound like Paul Helm. Granted, the terms possibility and existance need to be indexed along with Libertarian and freedom. Can anyone point me to answers.
Can anyone Help. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Albert Einstein
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 83
| Posted 11/9/2004 11:15 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Cottonman
Hi,
My name is Cottonmat...er cottonman as you can see. I like cool walks by coffee and warm nights with river.
I am just wondering why, if we are given free will, is God not culpable for this cataclysm of godless, pointless, gratuitous evil. God seemeth to give an egregious and volitile gift to humanity. Obviously humanity did a piss poor job with it.
We seem to have two options
1) God is retarded
2) God deems the possibility of evil, and hence the existance of evil, to be better than no world where libertarian free will exists.
Number 1 should not be dismissed offhandedly, and number 2 seems to sound like Paul Helm. Granted, the terms possibility and existance need to be indexed along with Libertarian and freedom. Can anyone point me to answers.
Can anyone Help.
Do you have children?
Do you deem the potential for the joy and love your children can bring to you and the world worth the risk for the evil they could bring you and the world?
Heck, if you drive a car, you're gambling that the benefit outweighs the potential for you accidentally killing someone.
If you do bring a child in the world and the child eventually commits a crime, does the court haul you in to try you and punish you?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Cottonman
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 11/10/2004 10:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Please forgive me, but the parent and automobile analogy sounds like apple flavored oranges. How about this analogy? I bequethe to my child a deadly laser gun that can kill every green acorn man in the universe. This is a very dangerous laser gun for the acorn men are our source of gravity. Next I tell the young inquisitive child not to shoot any green acorn men. alskdjf aghalks...I'm sorry but I cannot type any longer for my source of gravity has been killed by my hasty descision to bequethe to my child the terrible gift of a green acorn man killing laser gun. alskdjf aghalks....help | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/10/2004 2:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Cottonman-
Einstein’s analogy of our having kids is appropriate nonetheless. Sure, libertarian free will is a great potential for evil (and for good). But your question was ‘Is God culpable for evil that results from the free will he grants us?’ To draw a parallel with our choosing to have children we don’t need and so exposing them to the certainty of experiencing and giving pain and evil, is not inappropriate. We choose to bring children into the world knowing they might be raped, abused, or murdered, or worse still rape, abuse, and murder others. Yet we continue to have them. Why? Don’t dismiss the analogy just yet. First answer the question. Why do we have kids?
Yes, such free will is a volatile gift, with great potential for evil and good. Is the good worth the risk? Well, we certainly think the experience of OUR love worth the risk of bringing children into the world. But by what right do we bring them into the world and expose them to certain evil, perhaps very great evil? Maybe we’re just retarded. But I don’t think so.
Cottonman: We seem to have two options: 1) God is retarded, and 2) God deems the possibility of evil, and hence the existance of evil, to be better than no world where libertarian free will exists.
Tom: If (2) is the case, then God IS retarded as well, for if God deems the mere “possibility of evil” (not sure why you add “hence the existence…” since mere possibility does not logically imply eventuality—but that’s another issue) to be better than no world where LFW exists, then in my view this comes close to being ranked as one of the greatest evils. But who claims that it’s for the “possibility of evil” that God created? Who claims that it’s the possibility of evil that God values? Nobody that I know. But we do create for something greater than freedom. We create for love. And that’s just the point. God doesn’t value freedom in and of itself. He values love. Our loving responsibly just happens to require freedom. But it’s not “about” freedom, as your options (2) incorrectly assumes.
Do you have children because you value the possibility of their committing crimes? Is that why we have children? On the contrary, the possibility of evil constitutes the RISK, not the valued GOAL. The goal is that for which we weigh the risks; and the goal isn’t “the mere possibility of evil” or even “a world were LFW exists.” That sucks. Who would create “just for freedom”? But perhaps there’s something greater that is worthy the risk of freedom. What could that be?
Well, what is it in the case of OUR creating children and exposing them to the risk of suffering and evil? Why do we have kids?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Cottonman
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 11/10/2004 4:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Greetings TGB,
If you will kindly vouchsafe my stubborness I will be much indebted to your favor. That being said, sir, I am not at all willling to submit to Einstein's faulty analogy. You, nor he, have submitted to mine therefore I will not submit to yours.
I did not aver that Einstein's theory claimed inherent value on LFW. That would be misrepresenting what I believe he wants to accomplish. It is merely a vehicle, hence his genius in using the automobile analogy in conjunction with it. That being said: I never avered that the infamous laser gun was of any inherant value. If such a claim was implied, I most assuradly retract it in haste. Forgive my ignorance and blatant stupidity, undoubtadly a result of the immediate imputation of Adamic guilt and my ability to heap more upon myself in utter rebellion against the Almighty Christ.
You must certainly qualify your dealings in this matter. I am not ignorant as to your leading question regarding the particulars of reasonableness in procreation. Unquestionably I could be in error here, but I sincerely doubt if your response to my answer would reveal something new.
For now, answer me my riddle and I will do likewise. Show to me that Einstein's theory is not apple flavored oranges and I will show you that mine is not goat's milk. You must adequately show me why God's having children is similar to our creation of the universe and bestowing LFW upon it in order that we would recieve love. Merely saying that I should take a second look at it and prodding me to answer a question is unacceptable.
Once again I sincerely apologize for my frowardness. I plainly do not see that you & Einstein are as near at settling the problem of evil as you would suppose. Far more intelligent people than I share the same assessment. But alas! that is of no account, for it is us three at war with sin, alone, with God's Word in hand and our pitiful reflections on it at heart. May God, in His unchanging yet dynamic mercy grant us the disposition of love to admit error and fight for truth as the situation arises.
Though my posts are full of rhetoric, I could not be more open and sincere, considering my sinful state, than I am in the above paragraph. Let us not hold fast to our ideologies, but to our faith; let us contend valiantly for it. I trust that you feel the same and I am of one heart with you two in seeking to obsolve God of the charge of sin. How shall a piece of clay reply to the Potter in such a way?! Yet it is done all around us. I thank you for taking the time and fighting through these things, it is not easy, but like I said we three are at war with it. Let us fight, not amongst ourselves, but amongst the errors that creap in unawares.
ALL God's grace to you and the dear Einstein. I patiently await your response which will be most thoughtful I am sure. Untill then, I remain a servant of Jesus Christ longing for the advancement of His kingdom in the hearts of sinners such as I.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 11/10/2004 5:12 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Cottonman
Please forgive me, but the parent and automobile analogy sounds like apple flavored oranges.
The parent-child analogy is the one Jesus used the most. So it's the MOST applicable.
And it makes sense that Jesus often used the parent-child analogy because we ARE made in God's image.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 11/10/2004 6:45 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE I'm interested in your idea that virture would be impossible without vice. Are we therefore maintaining that God is not virtious? For God by definition cannot act any differently than being God; and by the definition of God we do mean the purest, holiest, most magnificient being that will ever exist. But it is not within God to do evil, to lie, or to blasphamy His name. So how can God in any way be virtious?
Also I'm interested in hearing why we default to the idea that LFW is benevolent and not a dangerous weapon, who says? Could God, figurativley speaking, not given us LFW and still been just as benevolent as though He had? More important question, would He still be loving Himself just as much if He had not given us LFW?
SoC I'm interested to hear where Jesus speaks of this parent child analogy so often. If you could throw some verses down that would be wonderful. also just to pick your brain, what does it mean to be created in the image of God?
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/10/2004 7:31 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by borg
JEE I'm interested in your idea that virture would be impossible without vice.
Hi Borg,
Actually, what I think I said was that virtue could not be possible without the possibility of vice. If that is not what I said, that is what I definitely meant. 
quote:
Are we therefore maintaining that God is not virtious? For God by definition cannot act any differently than being God; and by the definition of God we do mean the purest, holiest, most magnificient being that will ever exist. But it is not within God to do evil, to lie, or to blasphamy His name. So how can God in any way be virtious?
It is not clear to me how in the conventional view of God, He is more virtuous because he simply CAN'T sin (unable to sin), than in my view, which says that God cannot because He steadfastly wills (chooses) not to.
When the Bible says "God cannot lie," etc., it need not necessarily mean that He is some kind of automaton, acting rather like a "holy machine" of some kind that can do nothing BUT act holily. In my view, there's a very good reason why Scripture says God "can't" lie--Because His holy CHARACTER is such that every moral sensibility He has is positively repulsed by even the THOUGHT of doing evil.
It's like certain sins with certain people--we do not mean they do not have the ABILITY to commit certain sins when we say, "He could NEVER do that!" Speaking for myself, such sins as homosexual acts, bestiality, rape, child molestation, and the like are TOTALLY revolting to me to even think about, and I am definitely not tempted to do such things. However, that does not mean that I don't have the physical ability to do them, if I were so inclined.
quote:
Also I'm interested in hearing why we default to the idea that LFW is benevolent and not a dangerous weapon, who says? Could God, figurativley speaking, not given us LFW and still been just as benevolent as though He had?
That would of course beg the definition of benevolence or love.
quote:
More important question, would He still be loving Himself just as much if He had not given us LFW?
This issue is virtually completely intuitive, as far as I can tell; therefore, the most I think we can say is that to have not given us LFW would violate every moral sensibility he has placed within us--and the Scriptures very plainly reveal that we are made in His image and in His likeness.
Thanks for your stimulating questions,
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/11/2004 3:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Cottonman: You, nor he, have submitted to mine therefore I will not submit to yours.
Tom: Eh, gee, that’s logical.
Cottonman: If such a claim was implied, I most assuradly retract it in haste. Forgive my ignorance and blatant stupidity, undoubtadly a result of the immediate imputation of Adamic guilt and my ability to heap more upon myself in utter rebellion against the Almighty Christ.
Tom (smiling): Wow. We have our issues, don’t we? Hey, Cotton, if you’re in utter rebellion against Christ, what are doing on this site asking such important questions? And if you find any answers, how will you submit to them?
Cottonman: You must certainly qualify your dealings in this matter. I am not ignorant as to your leading question regarding the particulars of reasonableness in procreation. Unquestionably I could be in error here, but I sincerely doubt if your response to my answer would reveal something new.
Tom: I understood zero of what you just said. Dude, can you put that into plain English for me?
Cottonman: For now, answer me my riddle and I will do likewise. Show to me that Einstein's theory is not apple flavored oranges and I will show you that mine is not goat's milk. You must adequately show me why God's having children is similar to our creation of the universe and bestowing LFW upon it in order that we would receive love.
Tom: I’ll try again:
(a) God creates a world he didn’t have to knowing the possibilities/certainties of evil, but he does so because he deems the value of loving us and being loved by us worth the risk.
(b) We create children we don’t have to knowing the possibilities/certainties of evil, but we do so because we deem the value of loving them and being loved by them worth the risk.
We do create children and expose them to great risks of evil and suffering. That much is self-evident. And that we do so because we deem the experience of loving/being loved by and enjoying them worth those risks. Again, self-evident. So, one wonders why God would create a universe he doesn’t need and place in it persons able to love and relate if such an ability to love is only had at the risk of great evil. A good question. To me it makes sense to reason that OUR reasons for creating children in the face of such risks can help us understand why God would do such a thing. Now, you may not believe that God created for love or faces risks. Fine. I’m not suggesting the analogy demands that you do. All I’m suggesting is that the analogy makes the belief that God does create for love and does face risks a meaningful belief and successfully avoids the conclusion that God is to blame for our evil because he created us with the ability to use our freedom for good or evil. Unless you're prepared to blame parents for all their children do, the conclusion doesn't follow.
If this doesn’t work for ya, no problem. You started this thread asking for “help.” If the answers aren’t helpful, hey, you have other options. There are risk-free models of providence to choose from.
Cottonman: I plainly do not see that you & Einstein are as near at settling the problem of evil as you would suppose.
Tom: We don’t pretend to have “settled” it. I think the best we can do is manage it as best we are able. All theodicies have holes. All are weak. Some are weaker than others. But all are equally limited to having to “see in the mirror dimly.”
Cottonman: Let us not hold fast to our ideologies, but to our faith; let us contend valiantly for it. I trust that you feel the same and I am of one heart with you two in seeking to obsolve God of the charge of sin.
Tom: Amen to that!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/11/2004 4:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom: We create children we don’t have to knowing the possibilities/certainties of evil, but we do so because we deem the value of loving them and being loved by them worth the risk.
Spen: Is this meant to be hypothetical in a "good world" because it is obviously not true in the real world.
Really? It's never true in the real world? NO parents have children knowing the risks involved because they deem the experience of love worth the risks? If love is in fact not worth the risks, then we SHOULD abort our children and bring the human race to an end. That would be our duty. But most parents don't abort their children. Why? I submit to you that they don't abort their children because they believe the blessings and potential good of having those children are greater than the potential evils of having them.
quote:
spenlake: Abortion is a solution to this unwanted "creation" that occurs out of the misuse of God's gifts for our own lusts.
What's the point spen? That one abortion negates the choice many parents make to have and love their children in spite of the risks involved? Are you suggesting that parents who have their children in such cases are doing the wrong thing by not aborting them? If they're doing the RIGHT thing, what MAKES it the right thing in view of the risks involved?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Albert Einstein
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 83
| Posted 11/11/2004 4:10 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/11/2004 4:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Right Albert. Very simple. That it is not understood is a greater mystery to me than theodicy itself.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Cottonman
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 11/11/2004 6:31 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB & others,
Very glad to see that you do not have issues of rellion against Christ and hence you can easily and openly affirm openness. I would also like to thank you for focusing on our differences, that is much more fun. After all, we are not in this to solve anything are we? But rather just to bicker back and forth like a couple of old men fighting over the last cup of pudding in a five star nursing home. Now that our methodology is clearly defined, I will give you more reasons as to why I deserve the dag-blasted pudding. Thanks for the amen, even though it seemed quite out of place.
Tom: Eh, gee, that’s logical.
Pretty sure that someone who is being intellectually immoral in attempting to trap someone who is sincerely seeking for answers is in no place to tout the logic card. Sorry, I'll be nice now. After all, its just about pudding.
I would very much like to thank sisters of cain and JEE for strengthening my original point and Borg for asking about my views on father/son analogies employed by Christ. By reply to Borg will be implicit in my reply to sisters and JEE.
Our beloved sisters of cain correctly showed my faulty reasoning. This is what happens when one goes to scripture, I thank sisters for doing just that. The most honorable JEE claims that the gift of LFW is not evil or negligent but loving. But, dear friend, that is the focus of my question. Merely stating it simply will not do. I humbly ask you to obtain advice from sisters of cain as how to approach this certain issue. Excuse my frowardness.
Now to address the sisters: First lets take a look at few other analogies that Christ, Paul & Peter used for the relationship between the Father and believers and also the relationship between Christ and believers. Forgive me for merely listing them, but a concordance will most assuradly show that I am correct here. God the father is a husbandman, a wine maker, a bird killer, and yes a father. Christ is a vine, a door, a shepard, a piece of bread, a brother, and yes a son.
Let us deal with one particular analogy of the fatherhood of God. Luke 11:12-14 explicitly says that God knows how to give good gifts. Now I will grant to everyone that LFW exists and that it is given by God. I will grant it for the sake of argument alone. Now, however, I find myself at an impass. I fail to see how LFW is a good gift! I have to throw out Luke 11:12-14 or find reasons for why LFW is good.
With regards to my analogy, did I mention that the deadly laser gun can give food to my starving child and that it can protect him from robbers who want to steal my child's secret decoder ring? But alas! niether the decoder ring nor the food will help my child once he has used the gun to destroy gravity. Which leads me to my next point:
Will a young girl who has just been raped and left for dead claim that LFW is a good gift from a good father? Will someone in the heat of a bloody war who has the choice of seeing his comrads die or shooting a young child who has a granade claim that LFW is a good gift from a good father?
Having said that, my aim here is to show that you, TGB, are nowhere near solving the problem of evil. I did not claim that you thought you had solved it. However, the folder name of this discussion displays an acute ignorance as to the implications of your claims.
I hope that you enjoy my focus upon our differences and my employment of what you refer to as plain english. I sincerely apologize for being a jurk, but I attribute it to the issues that you claim not to have. Good day to you. 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/11/2004 8:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Cottonman: Very glad to see that you do not have issues of rellion against Christ and hence you can easily and openly affirm openness.
Tom: I didn’t say I didn’t have issues of rebellion or disobedience toward Christ. I do. But they do not amount to “utter” rebellion as you claimed yours did. I doubt your struggles with disobedience amount to “utter” rebellion. If they did, you wouldn’t be here.
In any case, this all has zero to do with my affirming openness.
Cottonman: I would also like to thank you for focusing on our differences, that is much more fun. After all, we are not in this to solve anything are we? But rather just to bicker back and forth like a couple of old men fighting over the last cup of pudding in a five star nursing home. Now that our methodology is clearly defined, I will give you more reasons as to why I deserve the dag-blasted pudding. Thanks for the amen, even though it seemed quite out of place.
Tom: Now you’re just being cantankerous Cotton.  The farther we get into this thread the less convinced I am you’re here to explore the issues. Why are you here?
I said “Amen” to your “I trust that you feel the same and I am of one heart with you two in seeking to obsolve God of the charge of sin.” How you see this as out of place is beyond me.
Cottonman: Pretty sure that someone who is being intellectually immoral in attempting to trap someone who is sincerely seeking for answers is in no place to tout the logic card.
Tom: What an interesting attitude you have Cotton. I’m actually afraid to say anything now for fear that you’ll find a way to interpret it as it was not intended.
Cottonman: I fail to see how LFW is a good gift! I have to throw out Luke 11:12-14 or find reasons for why LFW is good.
Tom: So don’t affirm LFW. If compatibilisitc freedom provides a better account of the world for you, go with it. Does compatibilistic freedom provide a better account of the world for you? If it DOES, then what answers did you come here seeking?
Cottonman: Will a young girl who has just been raped and left for dead claim that LFW is a good gift from a good father?
Tom: If she considers what good is lost were LFW not to exist at all, I think yes, in spite of her suffering she can make that claim that LFW is a good thing. But the answer to whether or not LFW is a good gift stands on BOTH the potential good and evil and not just on the evil.
Cottonman: Having said that, my aim here is to show that you, TGB, are nowhere near solving the problem of evil. I did not claim that you thought you had solved it. However, the folder name of this discussion displays an acute ignorance as to the implications of your claims.
Tom: Well, I’m not trying to solve the problem of evil or even come close to solving it for you or anybody else. So I doubt you’ll convince me that I haven’t explained anything to myself about evil. If my views help others, I’m happy. If they find solace in other contrary views, I’m happy for them. Whatever floats your boat Cotton.
I don't name the folders. It's probably best not to read a lot into them.
Cottonman: I hope that you enjoy my focus upon our differences and my employment of what you refer to as plain english. I sincerely apologize for being a jurk, but I attribute it to the issues that you claim not to have. Good day to you.
Tom: You attribute it to the issues I claim not to have? Again, I just don’t follow ya. It’s not you. I’m just pretty slow at these things.
I’m not sure if you’re a jerk or not. I don’t know you. But if you are a jerk, it’s not my fault. Nor is it attributable “to the issues that I claim not to have” whatever that means. But since you deny LFW, Cottonman, your being a jerk would have to be attributable to your own causal history, which doesn’t include me in the least. You didn't become a jerk when you met me.  But I doubt you're a jerk anyhow!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/11/2004 8:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Lock: The OT view is that God took the risk of evil entering His creation (through LFW) in order to be able to have true loving relationships with His creation. Cottonman has brought up a good point. To whose benefit is the risk? According to most, only a small minority of mankind will have this "true loving relationship" with God.
Tom: That doesn’t mean God only took the risk for those who in the end benefit. Not so. The potential benefit of LFW is for both God and us—all of us, each of us. Those who do not realize the potential benefit of LFW will only do so through their own choice. Whether those choices have to be made this side of the grave or not is a moot point. I’m open to discussing it. I don’t have any problem believing that God will do absolutely everything in his power to convince and win each person short of eradicating their personhood by determining such a choice for them. I’m less interested in arguing about when and where God can and cannot continue attempting to win people.
The point is this (as my sick mind sees it): If God accurately weighed the risks involved (the risks for him and for us—would a God who “is love” and who dies for us on the Cross do less?), then the fact that God went with creating us this way itself tells me that God believed the potential blessings greater than the potential losses. That a gift with greater potential for good than for evil turns out evil and suffering does not mean the gift is not good. There was a potential for evil. But much good has come out of it too. And that God takes ultimate responsibility for the evil by suffering the greatest evil and hanging on a Cross tells me I don’t HAVE to solve what’s left of this problem. I’m content to let God in the end tell us whether or not it was worth it.
Lock, if you can’t worship God or make any sense of evil apart from universalism, I support ya buddy. Really I do. Personally I don’t see it, but I’m fine with you seeing it. Are you fine with me not seeing it?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/11/2004 11:57 AM (GMT -6) | | borg: Tom just a quick question regarding doctrine and dogma. Do you believe that the Bible has only one true interpretation? If you do, why do come across with the attitude of "whatever helps you worship God more"? If you don't, then why do you waste your time discussing your views of scripture when it really doesn't matter?
Tom: Hey borg. A great question, one that deserves a thread of its own. Yes, I do think there’s one intended meaning of Scripture. I just don’t think everything Scripture means is EQUALLY fundamental. There ARE some beliefs that are basic and fundamental that we ought to really fight for, things about which I would never say, “Hey, whatever floats your boat.” Beliefs like whether there is a God, whether Christ is God come to us, some things about sin and salvation, etc. These are relatively clear. And believers basically agree on these. Not on every detail, but on enough of the fundamental claims of the Bible to make it true that we have a CORE, but that not everything is the core. There are obviously other issues over which believers disagree that aren’t hills to die on, where the one right meaning of Scripture is not as obvious as we might like but which does not threaten the CORE—because it is NOT the core.
In my view, open theism is not a hill to die on. Nor is determinism. Nor is LFW. Because we are already “in the family.” We didn’t have to get these absolutely right to make it into the family. Yes, there’s benefit in discussing these sorts of issues within the family so long as we don’t get down and dirty about it. We can learn from one another and make whatever adjustments in our beliefs that we feel are necessary. But when the temperature rises on these issues, I back off. There’s no point. If somebody’s a brother or sister in Christ and they think LFW is incoherent and makes a mockery of divine providence, I say, “Hey, that’s cool. If as a fellow believer in Christ you think LFW is a big lie, fine.” That doesn’t mean I’d say to an animist, “Hey, whatever ya feel! Go for it.” I think the sort of debate we’re having here is carried on within the family, in which case it is not a hill to die on.
Since I think worship and love of God is more important than anything else, that’s what I encourage. But worship and love of God does not demand that we “get it right” on every single interpretation of every single verse. So long as a believer is unable to worship or draw close to God believing LFW is true, then why would I make LFW a hill to die on? Why do that? If you can sincerely love and worship God, serve and live honorably for the gospel, as a Calvinist, why in the world would I want to INSIST you give up Calvinism? Likewise for the Calvinist and me. Why fight to see that Open Theism is eradicated from the face of the earth? Why tell open theists they CAN’T really be loving and worshipping God? Well, because we all assign certain beliefs a different importance. For me, open theism is not a front burner issue the Church ought to be throwing itself into. But for some, it’s THE foremost threat to the worship and love of God today.
Different hills to die on I guess. I can’t account for how other people assign importance to different beliefs, but for me, I never push LFW with people who believe otherwise.
Tom | | 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 12:00 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 |
|
|