 |
| 
MrIndifference
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144
| Posted 10/15/2001 12:45 PM (GMT -6) |   | Doc and the rest
I don't know if everyone is aware of this or not, but "Satan and the Problem of Evil" Is officially on the shelves. I just picked up my copy today. Who knows when I will actually get around to reading it though.
Congrats Doc...
"Faith is being able to see that someday you will be six years old, while having to view it from the eyes of someone that is three."
Mr I.
Edited by - mrindifference on 10/15/2001 6:48:43 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
gregw
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 47
| Posted 10/15/2001 4:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Mr. I,
I had the good fortune of reading the book in its manuscript form. I begged & borrowed from Tyler for a summer class project.
I found it to be a compelling and well reasoned read. There was a lot to think about.
I suppose now I should go out and buy the book since they were so kind to let me read the manuscript.
Blessings,
Greg
quote:
Doc and the rest
I don't know if everyone is aware of this or not, but "Satan and the Problem of Evil" Is officially on the shelves. I just picked up my copy today. Who knows when I will actually get around to reading it though.
Congrats Doc...
"Faith is being able to see that someday you will be six years old, while having to view it from the eyes of someone that is three."
Mr I.
Edited by - mrindifference on 10/15/2001 6:48:43 PM
Greg
http://www.bethel.edu
Edited by - gregw on 10/15/2001 9:36:53 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/17/2001 9:49 AM (GMT -6) | | I am very pleased the book is FINALLY out. It was essentially done over two years ago. And portions of it were completed six years ago (a major section that simply didn't get included in God at War). Patience isn't a natural virtue of mine, so this has been a ALONG time coming.
I hope and pray it makes a postive impact for the kingdom.
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 10/28/2001 3:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc: I hope and pray it makes a positive impact for the kingdom.
I think it will. It certainly had a powerful impact on me - especially regarding the power and therefore urgency of prayer. I pray more and more fervently since reading this. Very impressive work.
thanks,
Iconoclast
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 10/28/2001 5:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Since this is coming to be kind of a "What did you think of Doc's book" type thing, let me say some things. First of all, I sincerely believe that Doc is one of the (if not THE) most brilliant Christian thinkers out there. Definitely the most interesting that I've read in a long time. That's on the real. I've felt this especially since reading "Trinity and Process" It's quite obvious that Doc has spent a lot of time and energy thinking his thoughts through, not only logically, but also passionately as well. That's a beautiful thing. It's like he will leave little to no stones unturned in his pursuit to lay down his thoughts. His great level of scholarship, intellectual rigor, and theological acumen should be obvious to everyone who reads his work (even though some of the more biased will probably not admit to it). Personally, being completely honest, I think Doc is a genious. And that's my word, for real! 
As far as his argumentation, I must say that a significant amount of his reasoning seems very tight. With respect to Doc's six theses, one can clearly see the context from whence they emerge and the logic that produced them. Some points of his reasoning seems veritably unassailable to me, honestly. Not only that, but his rigorous use of logic in no way diminishes his caring, pastoral heart. It's quite obvious that he has much more investing in his work than just being correct. He genuinely wants to help people within (and without) the Church to formulate a worldview that he feels will be intergrous with the vision of Christ, and at the same time, honest with our existential lives and contemporary knowledge. I can, without doubt, see how his ideas could be compelling to many and a powerful influence to many more. In Dr. Boyd, the body of Christ has one it's best and brightest.
HOWEVER...
Though he brings out a great deal of useful, helpful, and interesting points, I find that I disagree with Doc's conclusions on a number of points--some of which I have already brought to the fore on this board. I personally do find some inconsistency in Doc's hermeneutical method, as well as with many of the practical applications that come from accepting his view. Some of the logical assertions that Doc makes appear to me to be unwarranted in some important places. Certain features and implications of his worldview that, to Doc, arguably form the best of the possible theodicies dealing with all data to be explained, seem far-fetched (if not downright non-sensical) to me...when the implications are taken out to their furthest conclusions. What sincerely bothers me is the simple fact that I know that many Christians will not think the view out this far to see the problems. (Note: I ask that people please not think me condescending or insulting for saying this. Those who know me know that I never tear anyone down to raise myself up. This is another honest conclusion that I've come to in my extensive discussions with open view theists) There are a number of troubling ideas that emerge from Doc's view that, IMHO, seem either ignored or somewhat minimized (perhaps even trivialized). This may be frustrating to some readers (as it was to me.)
Even with what I've said above, I found "Satan and the Problem of Evil" to be an impressive and insightful read. I would definitely put in on the "MUST READ" list for many people, scholars and lay-people. Another great work for Doc!! 
Now, on a more personal note...
I find myself in struggle over this whole thing. Actually, it has been for some time now. I can actually see how many people from the body of Christ could end up having better prayer lives, more social awareness, and higher senses of Christian purpose as a result of reading his book. The proof of the pudding is in the eating (yes, I know the REAL quote) and the bottom line is that there is much evidence ALREADY that certain persons find themselves liberated and, to some extent, centered by Doc's view. Only the most biased of people would try to deny this. If extensive interaction with open view theists (many of which who had been former Calvinists, in some way or another) has shown me anything, it has been the confirmation of what I've just stated. Though I personally believe that Doc's warfare worldview is deeply flawed in certain areas and inconsistently applied in others, I can see many people being helped by it...and being a benefit to the body in that right. Does this go along with Modes' question:
Is it more important that something is interesting or that it is true?
In my mind, I ask myself this question with the view. Do the deep problems I find with Doc's view really matter when so many people have been helped by it? If people have more fulfilled Christian existences as a result of accepting Doc's view, can I really knock that? SHOULD I knock it? Who knows? Well, anyway, that's enough for now.
Peace, all
Edited by - Mephi2K on 10/28/2001 10:23:34 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Triskal
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 198
| Posted 10/28/2001 6:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi -
Just out of mere curiousity, what are some of Doc's conclusions that you have the most trouble accepting? What are your reasons for not accepting them? And finally, what conclusions would you draw regarding the points he makes? I do realize that you have probably stated your point elsewhere, but I honestly can not recall where your view differs regarding his warfare views.
If you don't have time to answer these questions now, or you feel that it wouldn't fit well in this thread, you can always email me. I'd like to get your side of the issue.
My email address is triskal_2000@hotmail.com
In His Grip,
Matt
"In Him we live and move and have our being" - Acts 17:28
Edited by - Triskal on 10/28/2001 11:47:35 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
whasssuuuppp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 210
| Posted 10/28/2001 7:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Matt,
I'm not trying to respond for Mephi, but a couple threads that I think bring out some of the differences are these:
Another Tragedy
Why No Second Exodus?
And I'm sure there's others...
Mephi, thanks for what you said (ALL of it, not just the last paragraph!). Along those lines, something I've thought in the past couple years--do you think certain people (personalities) are drawn to one "view" of God over another? As I've studied the brain and psychiatry it stands out that people can be, across a spectrum, so different from each other. This is not to say that there isn't one ontological "TRUTH" about God out there, but that perhaps we all see him a little differently because we experience the world differently. Don't know. Just thinking out loud.
********************
Lespwa fe viv.
Hope makes us live.
A Haitian proverb | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 10/28/2001 7:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi, great post - excellent questions. Here is how I have answered those questions for myself. I think the quote from Modes is right on - it isn't a question of whether it is true. It is a question of how true it is. In my view we can never know the truth - although we do know who the truth is. We can only make models of reality that are more or less useful. I think Doc has just built the very best overall theological model out there. It already has and will continue to have a very positive impact.
However,
It is a model. It is a generalization. It is not completely true. It is a map; it is not the territory. One way I think of it is that Doc just wrote the "Principia". He just put together Newtonian physics. We now have a very concrete theodicy that is very, very helpful for almost all of the things we do. Now, there are a few problems here and there: it doesn't accurately predict the orbit of Mercury and what is the deal with the speed of light being constant. So...yes there are issues at the edges of this work - very important issues that when fully explored will lead to new insights, greater understanding and an even more positive impact on people's lives.
Thank goodness Doc didn't figure it all out and left something for us to discover. 
I think you are right on when exploring the issues around both the warfare view and natural evil. This is where the money is. I would say something like the warfare view is a useful model to the tune of around 80% - it is very powerful practically speaking. At the same time there is more to be understood here and I believe this understanding will yield great benefits.
Thank you Doc for laying such a great foundation and being willing to have an open dialogue about it. The combination of your intellect and openness is a force that helps the truth to continue to emerge.
thanks,
Iconoclast
Edited by - Iconoclast on 10/30/2001 11:29:36 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 10/28/2001 11:08 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Iconoclast: In my view we can never know the truth - although we do know who the truth is. We can only make models of reality that are more or less useful. I think Doc has just built the very best overall theological model out there. It has already and will continue to have a very positive impact ...Thank you Doc for laying such a great foundation and being willing to have an open dialogue about it. The combination of your intellect and openness is a force that helps the truth to continue to emerge.
AMEN! I second what Iconoclast said especially the part "we can never know the truth - although we do know who the truth is." Doc's view has had a positive impact on my life, and I am thankful for his openness too.
Blessings,
trosie
Edited by - trosie on 10/29/2001 04:09:13 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/30/2001 12:13 PM (GMT -6) | | I just stumbled onto this thread. I'm deeply honored, and a bit embarrassed.  Thanks for the feedback. I am looking forward to seeing how people who read the work sympathetically will improve upon it. I think the basic thesis can be developed in a number of different ways, and perhaps Meph will turn out to be right in contending that some of the ways I push it undermine its over-all plausibility. We'll see.
Thanks again.
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
OrthodoxBerean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 11/3/2001 1:07 PM (GMT -6) | | What do you guys think of this argument?? It was posed by a Calvinist. (I think),
"Gratuitous evils are all evils by which exceed any amount of necessity. Hence, the following:
(1) There exists instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting evil equally bad or worse.
(2) An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of an intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
(3) Therefore, there does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.
(William L. Rowe, "The Problem of Evil and Varieties of Atheism," American Philosophical Quarterly 16 (1979): 335-41.)
Your possible defeaters:
a) G.E. Moore Shift
b) Plantinga's Transworld-depravity
c) Some form of molinism
d) Thomistic knowledge/determination distinction
e) Be left with deism
Counters:
a) G.E. Moore shift leaves the unbeliever in such a state
b) This exceeds the possible limits of God's intervention with free agents, see comments by Michael Sudduth and Richard Swinburne.
c) Molinism is reducable to determinism (shall you take this route, which open theists do not, it will be easy to refute this)
d) Counterfactuals are not a possibility for God, but must be based on the free agency of creation; hence, this view is incoherent (this assumes intuitive activation of the will of God; as opposed to an inferential and passive view of God's knowledge). But open theists deny God's knowledge of the future as it is.
e) You must accept deism. For God to intervene to stop gratuitous evils, since free agents are capable of doing so, is to infringe upon the free agency of man, making God consequentially equivalent to the pupper master of Calvinism.
Hence, it seems the only possible way for an open theist to get out of the inductive problem of gratuitous evils is to deny God's acting in the world."
This came from a discussion board at www.delphi.com/christiantap/messages unuder Does Sovreignty demand total control?
If you believe you have a response to it the challenge is posted there. What do ya think?
Edited by - OrthodoxBerean on 11/03/2001 6:09:18 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/3/2001 5:14 PM (GMT -6) | | OrthodoxBerean,
Have you read Alvin Plantinga's fairly recent book on SIN? (I haven't, but it is in our church library. His son, Harry is in computer science at Calvin College and does the ccel.org. We've had dinner with their family.)
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
OrthodoxBerean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 11/3/2001 5:46 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
OrthodoxBerean,
Have you read Alvin Plantinga's fairly recent book on SIN? (I haven't, but it is in our church library. His son, Harry is in computer science at Calvin College and does the ccel.org. We've had dinner with their family.)
PoW
Nope I haven't read it. What 's the beef??? :-)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/3/2001 6:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Oooops. Didn't mean to imply anything.
You'd mentioned the last name in your post. Friends liked that book. Thought you'd like to know of it.
quote:
Your possible defeaters:
a) G.E. Moore Shift
b) Plantinga's Transworld-depravity
I was just passing through, and popped in with a "contribution" (or not?)
Bye.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 11/03/2001 11:59:09 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
OrthodoxBerean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 11/3/2001 9:51 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Oooops. Didn't mean to imply anything.
You'd mentioned the last name in your post. Friends liked that book. Thought you'd like to know of it.
quote:
Your possible defeaters:
a) G.E. Moore Shift
b) Plantinga's Transworld-depravity
I was just passing through, and popped in with a "contribution" (or not?)
Bye.
I know, I was joking too! :-)
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:55 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 |
|
|