ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Philetus]

Sorry. I will ask one primary question. Let's say we're speaking of an act. This act is my decision to go to college. Is it possible for me to talk of this act simultaneously being an act of God and of myself. This being that the act is able to be 'attributed' to 100% human and 100% God. Or, in comparison, if I hypothetically state that God acted in 51% of this decision, does that necessitate that I only did 49% of it? Let's leave aside how God actually 'acts' in these decisions. I am asking this question in light of Kathryn Tanner's theory of non-competition and Aquinas' metalinguistic categories.

Influence! Relationship! God is a loving, dynamic being with personhood. Assigning percentages strikes me as soft idolatry that tries to keep God harmless and on the shelf. Even after He has gone to such extremes at such extravagant personal cost to ‘become flesh and blood and move into the neighborhood’ and stay regardless of how the ‘neighbors’ treat Him. What is it about having God live in the neighborhood that scares the hell out of people? Even 100%/100% seems to be an effort to keep God at a safe distance. Is it really God’s character and attributes we are protecting or our own selfish desire to manipulate and control Him … keep him ‘high and lifted up’ so he isn’t really involved? The cross blows that position to smithereens. God won’t leave. He just won’t go away or settle for a little space in the corner of HIS creation. Nor will He compromise the freedom He has granted to others. God loves His creation. He doesn't idolize it, but wants to relate to it in reciprocal loving relationship. It’s as if God says, ‘go to college if you want, and I’ll go with you.’

Get a picture of the kind of God we serve … living in a college freshman dorm! Is that excessively humanistic for you? To much concern for people: concern with the needs, well-being, and interests of people? Then just picture him naked, kneeling and washing the feet of the Pope. Does that lift him up enough? NO? Then put him on a cross. That should do it.

Philetus

 

[VanhoozerRocks]

Philetus,
I think you might have misunderstood not only my intention, but my question as well. I was presenting a hypothetical case in order to discuss the relationship that exists between divine and human action. I do not believe that I presented any picture of God as a unmoved monad, and that you have misunderstood what I think I adquetly attempted to say. In addition to this, I was not in any manner stating that one can know in any sort of manner 'what percentage' of an event God caused; or if this is even an adequate way to frame this question. Needless to say, I would agree that we must have a 'dynamic and relational picture' (whatever that really means) of God, and that we must look to the person, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ as our "primary" lens through which to concieve of the triune Redeemer. If I read your post correctly (and I'm sorry if I didn't) you are assuming you know what I believe. Please don't do that. And yes, a theologia crucis is vital for anyone who attempts to do theology in service of the Church.

 

[Bob Hill]

I am an Open Theist for the reason that God does not know some future things that will happen according to His word.

Here are a few examples:

Deut 8:2 And you shall remember that the LORD your God led you all the way these forty years in the wilderness, to humble you and test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not.

Deut 9:13,14 “Furthermore the LORD spoke to me, saying, ‘I have seen this people, and indeed they are a stiff-necked people. 14 ‘Let Me alone, that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make of you a nation mightier and greater than they.’”

Deut 9:18-20 “And I fell down before the LORD, as at the first, forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water, because of all your sin which you committed in doing wickedly in the sight of the LORD, to provoke Him to anger. 19 For I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure with which the LORD was angry with you, to destroy you. But the LORD listened to me at that time also. 20 And the LORD was very angry with Aaron and would have destroyed him; so I prayed for Aaron also at the same time.”

Deut 13:1-3 “If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’ - which you have not known - ‘and let us serve them,’ 3 “you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”

Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

We see in 1 Cor 2:7, that the mystery was hidden: “The hidden wisdom of God in a mystery was ordained before the ages for our glory.”

Put another way, the “mystery was kept secret in age times”.

Rom 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began.

The mystery was “hidden from ages and from generations” (Col 1:26).

So, what was the character of the mystery?

More than anything else, it was a secret, hidden in God from ages and generations.

It was never written about anywhere in God’s word until it was revealed to the Apostle Paul.

It says in Ephesians 3:8,9, that Paul was given the grace that “I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.”

Anexichneevastos means, something “that cannot be searched out, that cannot be comprehended.”

This word occurs only twice in the New Testament. In Rom 11:33, it shows that God’s ways cannot be searched out.

Since Paul says he was given the grace of preaching this unsearchable grace, it must mean it could not be traced anywhere in the Scripture before it was given to him.

The context of Eph 3:8,9 shows this to be true. “To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which has been hidden from the ages in God who created all things through Jesus Christ.”

That means no prophecy made before Paul’s salvation concerns the mystery.

In other words, all prophecy made before Paul received the mystery is silent about the people and things of the mystery.

That is the character of the mystery.

Believers during the time the dispensation of the mystery is in place are baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ.

They become part of something brand new. Jews and Gentiles who believe become heirs together. They are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ.

We become partakers together in becoming one new man, a new creation (2 Co 5:17; Gal 6:15; Eph 2:14-16; Col 1:18-22).

There was nothing written about these things in the prophetic Scriptures before Paul’s conversion.

God called this new creation, the body of Christ.

It is made up of Jews and Gentiles as joint-heirs and joint-partakers.

According to the content of this mystery, God broke down the discriminatory barriers.

This truth causes us to make a strong distinction between Israel and the church which is His body.
Mid-Acts-Dispensationalists believe the body of Christ started with the Apostle Paul before he wrote his first epistle.

I believe the body of Christ started with the conversion of Paul.

Since Paul says he was given the grace of preaching this unsearchable grace, it must mean it could not be traced anywhere in the Scripture before it was given to him.

After Israel had been shown that they had been set aside, Paul was inspired by God to write Ephesians.

In Eph 4:3-6, Paul wrote about the unity of the Spirit. He was writing about God’s dealings with Christians today. He wrote, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, “one baptism”. Which baptism is it? It must be Spirit baptism since the Holy Spirit is still sealing members into the body of Christ.

Bob Hill

 

[Philetus]

Philetus,
I think you might have misunderstood not only my intention, but my question as well. I was presenting a hypothetical case in order to discuss the relationship that exists between divine and human action. I do not believe that I presented any picture of God as a unmoved monad, and that you have misunderstood what I think I adquetly attempted to say. In addition to this, I was not in any manner stating that one can know in any sort of manner 'what percentage' of an event God caused; or if this is even an adequate way to frame this question. Needless to say, I would agree that we must have a 'dynamic and relational picture' (whatever that really means) of God, and that we must look to the person, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ as our "primary" lens through which to concieve of the triune Redeemer. If I read your post correctly (and I'm sorry if I didn't) you are assuming you know what I believe. Please don't do that. And yes, a theologia crucis is vital for anyone who attempts to do theology in service of the Church.

No. Don’t take it personally. Trust me. I didn’t get a clue as to what you think from your post. The you in my post was generic. Not an attack on ‘your’ view. Just my style (or lack of).

So what is behind your question? How does ‘one’ measure the degree of involvement of each party in the divine/human relationship? (I think it’s the wrong way to think about relationships, myself.)

I may be wrong (again) but the very question suggests that one or the other must be inactive to some degree in order to arrive at consensus. But, capitulation is not ‘inactivity’. That’s like saying ‘silence is acceptance’. God is often ‘silent’ and gives us over to our sinfulness. That isn’t compliance. It is more like grace filled judgment. The cross isn’t non-involvement but 100% participation in the human state. So, whether or not God agrees with your decision to go to college, God none the less remains 100% involved. The good news is that God is for us, not against us whether he is for our decisions/actions or not.

I think that gets at a 'dynamic and relational picture' of God. Anything less tends to reduce God to an 'unmoved monad' which is to keep him manageable and at a safe distance; no more than an idol we control to at least some extent, objectifying the other. This is the exact opposite of love, both in divine/human or human/human relationship. God doesn’t objectify (idolize) human beings. To reduce by any degree somebody that is complex and multifaceted, to the status of a simple object is not love.

Philetus

PS. You don't get to ask hypothetical questions you are unwilling to hypothesize about.

 

[Philetus]

I am an Open Theist for the reason that God does not know some future things that will happen according to His word.

Don't you mean: that according to His word, God doesn't know some things that might or might not happen in the future? :jazz:

I'm an open theist because I don't know what I will have for breakfast in the morning.
That still remains a 'great mystery'. But, God knows, I'm partial to biskits and gravy.
And because God has granted me freedom to decide for myself, I will.
(I wonder if God has to worry about cholesterol.:think: )
Still, it is a sure thing that I won't decide until the cup is filled three times.


Glad to know you are still open, Bob.:first:

 

[elected4ever]

Don't you mean: that according to His word, God doesn't know some things that might or might not happen in the future? :jazz:

I'm an open theist because I don't know what I will have for breakfast in the morning.
That still remains a 'great mystery'. But, God knows, I'm partial to biskits and gravy.
And because God has granted me freedom to decide for myself, I will.
(I wonder if God has to worry about cholesterol.:think: )
Still, it is a sure thing that I won't decide until the cup is filled three times.


Glad to know you are still open, Bob.:first:

That is a pretty ridiculous assumption on your part.

 

[Philetus]

Originally Posted by Bob Hill
1 Corinthians 1:19-27 For it is written: 25 “the foolishness of God"

The above phrase strikes me as an affront to the SV. I guess one could say that in the context Paul is referring to only what appears to be foolishness on God’s part … but I wonder ….
Is it really 'foolish" on God's part to grant real, actual freedom for creatures to make decision that help shape the future, or is there substantial method to His madness?

Any wisdom on this Pastor Hill?

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

That is a pretty ridiculous assumption on your part.

Yes, it is.

 

[Philetus]

That is a pretty ridiculous assumption on your part.

Here is another one:

E4E is not an open theists.

 

[elected4ever]

Here is another one:

E4E is not an open theists.

Right, I don't make unsubstantiated assumptions and call it truth.

 

[Clete]

Right, I don't make unsubstantiated assumptions and call it truth.

:rotfl: :chuckle:

 

[elected4ever]

:rotfl: :chuckle:

I admit that my belief is a matter of faith and you admit that yours is a matter of human rational. I will take my faith over your human rational any time.

 

[themuzicman]

I admit that my belief is a matter of faith and you admit that yours is a matter of human rational. I will take my faith over your human rational any time.

So, you'll be abandoning your accounts on all theology debate sites, and abandoning your systematic theology, then?

Muz

 

[elected4ever]

So, you'll be abandoning your accounts on all theology debate sites, and abandoning your systematic theology, then?

Muz

What are you talking about?

 

[themuzicman]

What are you talking about?

You said that your belief is based upon faith and not human rational thought.

Thus, you should be abandoning anyplace where your faith is expressed through rational thought, and abandoning theologies that are arrived at through rational thought, as well.

Muz

 

[elected4ever]

You said that your belief is based upon faith and not human rational thought.

Thus, you should be abandoning anyplace where your faith is expressed through rational thought, and abandoning theologies that are arrived at through rational thought, as well.

Muz

Boy, your dumber than a stump.

 

[Philetus]

Boy, your dumber than a stump.

A skunk sat on a stump
The stump thunk the skunk stunk
And the skunk thunk the stump stunk

 

[Philetus]

You said that your belief is based upon faith and not human rational thought.

Thus, you should be abandoning anyplace where your faith is expressed through rational thought, and abandoning theologies that are arrived at through rational thought, as well.

Muz

Well, He has half of that accomplished.


:first: TOL idol award goes to ......:drum: .... themuzicman ....

 

[elected4ever]

Your faith shapes your reality. Your reason is adjusted to fit your reality. That is why it is an impossibility not to believe in something. There is no such thing as an atheist.