 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Understanding Faith/Faithfulness | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/17/2005 9:10 AM (GMT -6) |   |
Selah said...John: Funny how those who would denigrate reason constantly use their reason to do so. As Selah has demonstrated for us quite well, one need not look very long or very hard to find anti-intellectuals who are in fact quite intellectual, who are simply contradicting themselves in their supposed denigration of reason. selah: HEY, you were supposed to say: "Gee, selah is in great company!" "She must have deep insights to come to the same conclusion as these other intellectual giants." and "I BEST pay attention to every word she says from now on, because she must really be in the know!" you blew it John. How could you...
Ha! (Not that it probably will make any difference to you, but I have edited and expanded upon my former post).
Blessings,
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/17/2005 9:38 AM (GMT -6) | | | Corey,
I have never once said anyone in this thread IS anti-intellecual; all I have said is that to denigrate reason at the expense of faith is an anti-intellectual APPROACH to Christianity, and one that finds no place in the thought of Jesus, Paul, or any of the other biblical writers.
John Post Edited (JEE) : 1/17/2005 8:46:59 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/17/2005 9:42 AM (GMT -6) | | | Selah,
It doesn't seem to me to need much explanation (though the argument Paul makes seems to be largely ignored in our modern culture). In Romans 1, Paul is simply saying that anyone and everyone can see from the obvious evidence of the created order that there is a God, and that they should serve Him. This is an appeal to reason by Paul, not a "just believe whether you have any reason to or not" kind of thing.
Christianity is nothing if not an eminently reasonable faith.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/17/2005 10:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
Figuring out divine providence and the ability of God to carry out temporal acts (in general) poses some interesting questions. I guess what we CAN say is other variables are always at play...not just that God couldn't or wouldn't fulfill his (temporal) promises.
When we are talking about "other variables" being at play (ala the mystery in the tornado idea" we effectively ARE talking about how God, in some sense, may NOT be able ot fulfill his temporal promises. Being honest, THIS is pretty much why I started getting as involved with this open view thing in the first place. From the jump, I've been a person who believes that God speaks and acts unilaterally. AND that God leads, guides, and PROMISES things. The entire reason I got into ministry and went to seminary is because I really believed that God told me to and that He would take care of what I needed. When I first read "God at War" and began understanding the implications of the open view, it hit me: This man is implicitly saying that God can promise something that, because of certain circumstances, He MAY NOT be able to deliver! This is HUGE for some people of faith like me. To posit a God that may be temporally thwarted in the midst of IMMENSE faith...is to have SERIOUS implications for people who follow God believing that "where God gives the vision, he WILL give the provision!" See what I'm talking about?
It seemed VERY obvious to me that when Doc wrote his stuff, he did NOT keep people like me in mind.
****************************************
Selah:
Well, I think there is significant biblical support for both outcomes. (Some ARE healed when prayed for, ALL ARE healed in Heaven.) In our socio-linguistic context (and that of all christendom - even back in the day) it's common for people to talk about both as possible answers to prayer...because both ARE possible answers to prayer. No reinterpretation necessary. That's just the way things are. God's purposes, reaping what we sow, our faith, their faith, physical laws etc. all play a part of whether or not healing happens now...or later.
However...
I agree with you (write that down!!) It SEEMS like a reinterpretation because this "ultimate healing" thing is spoken about as a second-best scenario. Kind of like "well, now all we can do is pray" Ya, poor us, because that's not the most powerful thing we can do! gee.
For one thing, can you see how dogmatic thinking works? It's a TOTAL win situation. If God heals a terminally ill person who's been faithfully prayed for, God answered the prayer. If God DOESN'T heal a terminally ill person who's been faithfully prayed for, God answered the prayer. Um... Sounds kind of convenient, don't you think??
Moreover, how could you not reinterpret something if one is having UNWAVERING FAITH about a healing or something? If one truly believes that God was going to heal someone (by whatever means of confirmation) then OF COURSE that person would have to reinterpret things if the healing didn't take place. Usually the reinterpretations are as follows:
1) There wasn't enough faith for God to move.
2) We misheard God...and God didn't tell us that sister so-and-so WOULD be healed. We were presumptuous.
3) God gave them the "ultimate healing" by letting them die.
I've heard ALL of these...but...one thing I've NEVER heard from these within these kind of Pentecostal/Charismatic circles is that God COULD NOT do it because of "creational factors" outside of God's willing, meaning demonic forces, "natural" evil and such. Nope. And to posit that, I say, would SERIOUSLY diminish some people's faith in God for TEMPORAL deliverance.
*****************************************
Selah:
Anyway, I think we would see more healing in the temporal...if we weren't of such little FAITH. Hence, the importance of faith again.
Coming from the land of the "Word of Faith" movement, do you know HOW MANY times I've heard this little statement abused?? But let's go with this. How could a person NOT be double-minded if one concedes that it's possible for God to do ABSOLUTELY ALL HE CAN and yet still not accomplish his temporal purposes? You'd be KILLING the faith of some people in the Pentecostal/Charismatic moment. Believe that. Doc has ALWAYS poo-pooed this...and I KEEP telling him how serious it is.
If any of y'all have wondered WHY I have been bringing all this stuff up for YEARS, now you know.
***************************************
Selah:
I think there's a misunderstanding here in terms of "theodicy in action." Namely, the three points you listed I don't think I made (intentionally anyway) so, let me clarify. Where you say 1)this hardship interpreted as coming from God 2)having faith even when it comes from God and 3) That when suffering comes from God it's ULTIMATELY for the believer's good.
I would say this: 1) agreed. this hardship is being interpreted as coming from God in this case 2)have faith EVEN IF it comes from God 3) That if suffering did indeed come from God, the point is, have faith BECAUSE you will be able to overcome the suffering. (not because it's good)
Do you see the difference? I'm not saying that the idea of hardship coming "from God" isn't problematic for my theodicy. It is. Even when I think of "hardship as discipline" it's a problem because I don't know what that looks like/how that's different from evil from our perspective. But that's not the focus.
The focus is:
Christ is our faith model in suffering because he suffered. fix your eyes on that when enduring hardship (or hardship as discipline) because, like Christ, faith is the means by which you'll make it through to your ultimate reward.
This focus is there, Selah. But you CANNOT ignore the biblical authors point made on the side...
7Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? 8If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. 9Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! 10Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. 11No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.
12Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees. 13“Make level paths for your feet,” so that the lame may not be disabled, but rather healed.
As problematic as this is for us to deal with, we HAVE to deal with it because it's there. Now, what one COULD say is that the biblical author is REINTERPRETING the free willed actions of Christian persecutors as divine chastisment...but that's not the ACTUAL state of affairs. But we know where THAT would lead, right? So, to AFFIRM this particular thing that the biblical author is declaring, you'd HAVE to say that God was INDEED using the persecutors to chastise the believers for their own good...just like God "used" the Babylonians to judge his people in the OT. Surely, you can buy that, right, Selah?
************************************
Selah:
I'm not sure we need to go so far as to say "the reinterpretation of events" is what theodicy people do. I think we can say that God GAVE us a certain core understanding of HIMSELF in scripture and we have to work with that. The dogmatic idea of God being love is not a reinterpretation of anything, for example. Since God is love, theodicy people have to work with that. The dogmatic idea of God getting angry at injustice/other gods/etc. is also not a reinterpretation of anything - theodicy people have to work with that too. And, all the other "omni" things God is have to be worked with.
So, is it REALLY "creative theologizing to preserve the dogmatic in the face of adversity" or is your comment itself a reinterpretation of the fact that "theologians CANNOT reinterpret God (because he's interpreted Himself in JC), but they
CAN and SHOULD focus on that understanding of Him, in the face of adversity" There's nothing creative about it, really.imo
Actually, I'm not the first person to use the term "creative theologizing". This term has been used by Old Testament scholars like Terrance Fretheim to talk about some of what was going on in the formation of the OT. They also use the term "creative historiography" You can probably guess what THAT means.
***************************************
Selah:
I presuppose that God is faithful.
I presuppose that reason gets in the way of faith...sometimes in detrimental ways.
I also presuppose that reason is necessary to a certain extent... (I think wisdom gives the parameters)
I presuppose the Omni's
I presuppose the Bible true.
I presuppose that the way God speaks to me can be trusted...and should be responded to in faith.
I presuppose that faith is a huge variable in doing Kingdom work (perhaps the biggest next to love).
I presuppose that faith is a decisive variable more than we think, perhaps. (it was for peter...if he was going to sink or not ;) )
I presuppose that one reason God gave us the examples of faith in scripture was to counter the idea that faith is connected to one's interpretation of events, ideas, or other things.
-What do you mean by the Bible being "true"?
-What do you mean by God being "faithful"?
*****************************************
Selah:
so the whole deal about "My sheep hear my voice" out the window? How do you do "relationship" with God in your head? Is communication involved? Is that communication a one way street? You may be saying something totally different, but I'm hearing: "God really isn't all that faithful, rather, we choose to believe he is...on a moment by moment basis depending on the day."
This is caricaturizing what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that, often, contact and communication with God has a level of AMBIGUITY that necessitates that, on some levels, we make CHOICES about how to proceed. These are choices of INTERPRETATION of what communicated data we receive. Rarely are encounters with God SELF-AUTHENTICATING and SELF-EVIDENT. They occur in a context of previous understandings and presuppositions. This occurs in ALL communication, but we are often not reflective enough to understand this as being the case. Communication takes a speaker and a listener. Contrary to much belief, listeners ARE active in the process.
*********************************************
Selah:
meph
For me personally, whenever I do this...I have a particular statement that I make for myself...or when I talk to others. "I choose to interpret this as..." I use this whenever I am talking perpsectivally about divine or demonic activity. This reflects the fact that my interpretation and actuality are RELATED, though DISTINCT. My interpretation of things may, AT MOST, be indicative of reality...but not totally things as they are in any naive sense.
In short, I treat "faith" as the significantly chosen subjective approriation of something as "true", even in the face of objective uncertainty and ambiguity.
selah
In other words "Luck"
Incidentally, and seriously Mephi,read that last paragraph and tell me it doesn't sound like you are the one on the throne. YOU make the choice to interpret if something was God or not? What about reality and relationship? The slope gets slippery, no? You don't REALLY have a relationship with God, you are choosing to believe you do. How could YOU know amidst all this ambiguity? The reality of God's faithfulness is subject to whatever YOU decide. And, since you are finite, you could be wrong...
The Bible is subject to it's authors mistakes/opinions. Reality is subject to MY interpretation of it. Hey, I don't believe in anything anymore! Am I really reading words, or do I THINK I am.. come on... you're one of the smartest people on earth! what's goin on?
Ok, TNT person. Think about it. Ultimately, when it comes to communication, WE ARE ALWAYS "ON THE THRONE" IN A SERIOUS WAY. Communication is an active process that involves many filters, composed of environmental contexts, previous understandings, etc. There is ALWAYS person interpretation going on...even if we choose not to realize it. One of the worst things I believe can happen is when we play the part of naive realist, thinking that we truly see and hear things AS THEY ARE, not recognizing all the filters.
Come on, Selah. "The map is not the territory" "The meaning of the communication is what the receiving person gathers" These are ideas based on the understanding that one's perceptions IS their reality.
And YES, realizing this is a slippery slope. But what is one to do? Just ignore what modern psychology and neurology have taught us about the human brain and how communication actually works between persons?
Wait a second. Let me give brief example. Let's say that we are out somewhere and I buy you a drink. Now you can INTERPRET this action lots of ways (He's being nice, He's trying to pick me up, etc) and it's possible that NONE of your interpretations could be correct. Your interpretations would be based on YOUR previous experiences and understandings. And there is no direct correlation between your interpretations and actuality. Even though your interpretation of the event and actuality of the event are related, they are DISTINCT.
Biblical example:
John 12
27“Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28Father, glorify your name!”
Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.
30Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” 33He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.
Interpretations, boo. Interpretations! Reality and perception are NOT directly correlative. ANd this has implications for ANY type of communication!
Oh, and we don't even WANT to go deep into what this would mean about how we perceive "answered prayer!"
****************************************
Selah:
If you said those things to me in a church context I'd be like: "pastor, what are you telling me? We have to choose to interpret things? I can't really hear God and know it? How is that a relationship? What about reality. Is God faithful or not?"
In SK's Works of Love, how can one tell if a "loving act" is TRULY loving? If I tell you I love you, can you REALLY know what I REALLY mean? Or in both cases, do you have to, at some point, make the choice to INTERPRET actions in one way rather than another?
Selah:
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/17/2005 9:14:44 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/17/2005 10:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah said...
If "anyone and everyone" can see...its pretty obvious. Why wouldn't they "just believe?" I guess I'm not following you John.
John: Paul says that the reason people don't believe is that they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness," not that they don't already have sufficient evidence to believe.
Also, Corey's right. So what's the deal?
In my opinion, you both really need to abstain from armchair psychologizing.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/17/2005 10:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's the thing, y'all. The ambiguity within communication, interpretation and, "having faith" is GOING to be there. The only certainty that one ends up having is the PSYCHOLOGICAL CERTAINTY that subjective appropriation allows. Surely, we've all heard the phrase: "One can be sincere and sure...yet, sincerely and surely wrong!" That's what that means. Just because we are CERTAIN on something doesn't necessarily make it the case. But what else can we do? We can't be doubtful and tentative about EVERYTHING...not and have a productive life. We work on terms of belief conservation and move on. We live by a continuum psychological certainty built upon interpretations emerging from reasonable inferences about our life experiences. But we NEVER, EVER, see things as they truly are.
Surely, this has to have some impact when we are talking about the work of the biblical authors genuinely being HUMAN in some sense. Surely, this has to have some impact when we are talking about what it means to have faith in God.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
di
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 49
| Posted 1/17/2005 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | |
Selah said...
MephEternal said...What I think is VERY interesting is that this means that, as one's "hope" changes, the life of faith will necessarily change. Notice that it doesn't CEASE being faith! Not in the least. Even though that contour of that faith may change dramatically. Interesting, indeed. YES! Can anyone think of an example of that? someone who had hope in something, it changed, and then their faith changed right along with it? Let's make it concrete. love selah
~ ~ ~
I haven't read this entire thread, but this caught my eye. I can make this concrete...I had hope (Hebrews 11:1 hope) in having children, I backed that desire with God's word, prayer and faith. So far, no children...and perhaps not in this lifetime will I realize this heart desire. But it's okay now. My faith has changed dramatically through the process of wanting to have but never receiving this particular blessing....and while it could have diminished my faith in God's promises, (it certainly made me question) it has only served to strengthen and deepen my faith and to look for the ambiguity of this in wills other than God's. There was a time my "faith" wouldln't allow me to speak doubt into God's promises of children, but now my faith says no matter what, it is well with my soul.
love, di | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 1/17/2005 11:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Precious di, thank you for that. Read on and see if you can help us out!
love
selah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Meph,
Preliminary thought
I would say there are two levels that structure our communication 1) surface structure (where we share meanings with common language) and 2) deep structure (where we – as much as possible – share meanings on a deeper level taking into account the other person’s perspective).
So, take the example above where you asked me for my presuppositions regarding faith.
I gave them to you, right? Ok. But, then what happened? You came back and asked me to share meaning with you on a deeper level. That is active listening. There was a good reason you did it… it helps move you closer to what I see through my eyes so that you can understand what I’m really suggesting by my comment. We do this all the time. And, if I answer you and it’s still not clear, you might even ask another clarifying question to further make sure... By doing this you're going deeper.
(In your example, if we were out and you bought me a drink, I may or may not ask clarifying questions. I wouldn't think it necessary...I'm not going to assume too much from that. However, if you wanted to pick me up in your warmed up car and take me out for drinks …yes, clarifying questions would be asked.:0))
All this is to say that where communication is concerned we are not innocent bystanders.
The filters have us trapped to a certain degree, but we CAN choose to actively participate in seeking clarity through asking descriptive questions (especially when something’s valuable to us) and we can overcome many filters.
This is how I see all growing relationships. Think of how much closer you can get to a person by understanding them at a deep level because that deep level has been communicated. This is intimacy.
Now, of course I'll grant that there will be times with people where the speaker isn't sure of her own deep structure. This is where OUR communication with others DIFFERS from our communication with God. God knows God's deep structure.
When we attempt to grow in our intimate relationship with Him through this “meaning matching” communication process. We get to know Him/His ways on a deeper level through spending time with Him seeking his deep structure... and through giving him ours. Through time, we learn, know more, and are more confidently assured of who he is and how he acts. Through that...our faith grows. (case in point...Abe)
Hope that makes sense, if not just ask clarifying questions ;)
~gotta go be good now,
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 LeePost Edited (Selah) : 1/17/2005 12:48:55 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/17/2005 11:58 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
When we are talking about "other variables" being at play (ala the mystery in the tornado idea" we effectively ARE talking about how God, in some sense, may NOT be able ot fulfill his temporal promises. Being honest, THIS is pretty much why I started getting as involved with this open view thing in the first place. From the jump, I've been a person who believes that God speaks and acts unilaterally. AND that God leads, guides, and PROMISES things. The entire reason I got into ministry and went to seminary is because I really believed that God told me to and that He would take care of what I needed. When I first read "God at War" and began understanding the implications of the open view, it hit me: This man is implicitly saying that God can promise something that, because of certain circumstances, He MAY NOT be able to deliver! This is HUGE for some people of faith like me. To posit a God that may be temporally thwarted in the midst of IMMENSE faith...is to have SERIOUS implications for people who follow God believing that "where God gives the vision, he WILL give the provision!" See what I'm talking about?
It seemed VERY obvious to me that when Doc wrote his stuff, he did NOT keep people like me in mind.
I've heard ALL of these...but...one thing I've NEVER heard from these within these kind of Pentecostal/Charismatic circles is that God COULD NOT do it because of "creational factors" outside of God's willing, meaning demonic forces, "natural" evil and such. Nope. And to posit that, I say, would SERIOUSLY diminish some people's faith in God for TEMPORAL deliverance.
Coming from the land of the "Word of Faith" movement, do you know HOW MANY times I've heard this little statement abused?? But let's go with this. How could a person NOT be double-minded if one concedes that it's possible for God to do ABSOLUTELY ALL HE CAN and yet still not accomplish his temporal purposes? You'd be KILLING the faith of some people in the Pentecostal/Charismatic moment. Believe that. Doc has ALWAYS poo-pooed this...and I KEEP telling him how serious it is.
If any of y'all have wondered WHY I have been bringing all this stuff up for YEARS, now you know. Good stuff Mephi. While I don't agree with you on this issue, at least NOW I more fully understand where you're coming from.
 Post Edited (Laika) : 1/17/2005 11:04:06 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/17/2005 2:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
When we attempt to grow in our intimate relationship with Him (God) through this “meaning matching” communication process. We get to know Him/His ways on a deeper level through spending time with Him seeking his deep structure... and through giving him ours. Through time, we learn, know more, and are more confidently assured of who he is and how he acts. Through that...our faith grows. (case in point...Abe)
Ok. Now we're getting to a different take on faith. Faith as CONFIDENCE garnered by relationship development with God. Basically, what this entails is that extended contact and trust being built between two persons. It goes along with what I've said about how we come up with our belief structures. We form worldviews from our interpretations of our life experiences. The more contact that we have with something (or someone), the more able we are to begin to have reasonable inferences from those experiences, and come up with an "idea" about that which we experience. The more and more we have our initial conceptions valided the more "certain" we become about their being true. Taken to God, the more and more that we experience God a certain way (or I should say INTERPRET our experiences with God), they more and more grounds we feel that we have to say something about those experiences with God. And the more CONFIDENCE that we feel we have to say those things.
[Digression: Even the idea of "experiences with God" is ambiguous. There are many ways that people describe their experiences with God...from a certain feeling when reading scripture all the way to having elaborate open visions. When we get into how interpretations are involved at THIS level...whooooboy.]
All of this is cool...as long as we realize something important. Even though the epistemological method that you are describing is truth-conducive (meaning that all things considered, it is very helpful to establishing truth), it is NOT infallible by any means. Mainly, what it does is give us rationally-held WARRANTS for our current beliefs...and the growing psychological certainty about those beliefs. This, of course, does NOT establish the "truth", as such.
**************************
Di,
Thanks for your personal example. Definitely appreciate your openness with that.
**************************
Laika:
Good stuff Mephi. While I don't agree with you on this issue, at least NOW I more fully understand where you're coming from.
and..
Selah:
Before I reply in full I want to echo what Laika just said. That last post was especially helpful in understanding your position/view. Thanks for taking the time to respond. The way you articulate your process benefits us all in some way... beyond the bounds of understanding you.
Thanks for the kudos. Actually, I thought that I had mentioned this some time ago...all the way back in the Coolboard days...but that WAS a long time ago.
Yes, open view theism has some serious practical ramifications for the life of faith. Prayer. Expectation. All that. Even though it ends up being a "greater good" argument more or less (just like Calvinism), the stakes seem a bit higher. At least in Calvinism it can truly be said that NO evil is meaningless and that God IN NO WISE fails to bring something to pass. Because gratuitous evil is negated, literally EVERYTHING can be said to be in God's good meticulous plan. In open view theism, however, one of the implications is that it is possible for God to tell a person to do something with the SERIOUS BELIEF that God will have that person's back...but then certain creational factors emerge such that God cannot give the support that God once thought. In short, it's in the realm of possiblity that God can place a person in situations that God, even trying His hardest, cannot deliver that person from.
That's HUGE, y'all.
Me? I've just come to terms with it...as I hold to a much more process view of reality. I just say that God can call a person to do X and will do EVERYTHING in God's power to bring it to pass...but sometimes it just may not work out. This is why I SERIOUSLY say that any consistent open view theist will have their petitionary prayer go in the following motif...
Lord, please do X if it's possible for you and if it's your will.
This demonstrates the belief that the petitioner understands that it is genuinely possible for God not to be able to pull something off...even IF God "promised" that it WOULD happen. Again, this doesn't do wonders for the whole "believe and not doubt" crowd. To be consistent, an open view theist's faith in God's ability to do TEMPORAL deliverances, healings, and such would HAVE to be tempered with humility, given the open view metaphysic.
And, Selah, you can push AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALL you want.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/17/2005 2:46 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
I'll say it like this:
I can see how an consistent open view theist can have unwavering faith in...
God's loving character
God's loving INTENTIONALITY
God's constant working towards good, loving ends.
What I CANNOT see a consistent open view theist having any type of unwavering faith in is God keeping TEMPORAL promises of deliverance, salvation, healing, provision, etc. Neither can I see unwavering faith that prayers WILL be answered.
I'll agree with that. I've heard Doc talk about how every war has casualties. So even though the ultimate outcome is assured, the temporal, tactical aspects of the warfare is not guaranteed to us. It's really hard for me to think about the real possibility that my beautiful wife or daughters could become "casualties".
Where I end up with this is, where else am I going to go? What's the alternative, NOT trust God with them? "No, God, I think I can do a better job of protecting them." In the absolute worse-case scenario where they die, my best and only hope is still Jesus' love and provision. Eventually, even death loses it's sting.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 94 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:50 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 |
|
|