How do you view God?

[1Way]

adajos - Welcome to the forum, and thanks for sharing on this topic. I am interested in finding the location of said Bethel College. I asked the following to Clete and BChristianK because I thought one of them might know, but then neither of my comrades answered me so I suppose I should have directly asked you.

Bethel? Is that Bethel collage close to Mishawaka or South Bend Indiana? Or is that another Bethel?

Also, in reading your post, I am wondering about that class you mentioned between Boyd and Eddy. I am wondering if they taught the class from two different perspectives, like the open view and the closed view for example, or was the jest fest of put downs based on just pulling each other's leg, not so much over theological differences? I understand you did not take the class, but wondered if you had any further insight about that.

 

[1Way]

Clete and BChristian - I am still waiting for a response (slightly edited) from my post # 229 to you two. Thanks for your time and consideration.

Clete and BChristian - Thanks for the updates on this foreknowledge issue, very interesting. I still wonder if these so called differences are somewhat like the so-called differences between libertarian and compatiblelistic (spl?) freewill. Every time after hearing these distinctions, I'm happy to stick with free will or not free will.

I have heard something of this about Boyd before, and though it is interesting, I find it pretty philosophically based. Although it is off topic to our ongoing discussion, it is on topic to the scope of this thread's topic, so, please help me with Boyd's thinking. Also, I must say that Hunt's "simple" knowledge sounds anything but simple, unless I would qualify it as being simply silly or irrational.

Quote.

• Boyd argues that God knows that a person may or may not do X in situation y.

That seems to me can be a very vague sort of knowing, because of the introduction of the full gambit of uncertainties (may or may not do) then this knowledge is potentially full of uncertainty. But if he means that concerning X, in situation Y, that man either will or will not do X, then I disagree with this formula. (Q1) May or may not can mean yes or no in terms of action, or it can mean anything in between as well, as in varying levels of uncertainty, so I would appreciate it if someone would clarify this not so small distinction for me. Thanks. Also, if I recall correctly, (Q2) I assume that Boyd places this same exact formula concerning ALL yet future events, perhaps including ALL "possible" events. If that is also true(?), I also disagree with that postulation as well. More detailed info is requested, and no, I do not have the book, and no, I am not currently financially well suited enough to acquire it right now. I'm going to see about going to a doctor soon about my back pains from 4 months ago.

I bend the issue around certainty and varying levels of uncertainty, and some things are simply (to varying degrees) uncertain in the mind of God. God does not know many issues of yet future outcomes with much certainty. And I base a large part of that view from the biblical and rational acknowledgement of chance or random events, which have no moral or predictable determinants. So given this handy formula that applies to what extent I do not yet know concerning all things yet future, or all things possible yet future, etc. I would say the following.

• God (to some variable extent of certainty) knows that a person may or may not do X in situation y.

Do either of you two know if my treatment of the same formula represents a logical difference, also I would not levy that knowledge against God about all possible things, I would say that theoretically God could know many yet future possibilities but that since they are truely not certain, why dwell on them, why would God know about something that does not exist or may not even be a likely or important issue. I assume my formulation makes a difference, but I am unclear on how this formula is implemented, as mentioned. If the Bethel college is the same one that is near me, I bet I could go visit there and check out that book for a spell here and there. My Bethel college is near South Bend IN.

 

[adajos]

1Way:

adajos - Welcome to the forum, and thanks for sharing on this topic. I am interested in finding the location of said Bethel College. I asked the following to Clete and BChristianK because I thought one of them might know, but then neither of my comrades answered me so I suppose I should have directly asked you.

Bethel College, soon to be Bethel University, is located in Arden Hills, MN which is a northern suburb of St Paul.

Also, in reading your post, I am wondering about that class you mentioned between Boyd and Eddy. I am wondering if they taught the class from two different perspectives, like the open view and the closed view for example, or was the jest fest of put downs based on just pulling each other's leg, not so much over theological differences? I understand you did not take the class, but wondered if you had any further insight about that.

That I'm not so sure about. I would imagine they taught the class as proponents of the Open View, but I'm sure they were intellectually fair and honest enough to explain how spiritual warfare might fit in or not fit in with other perspectives.

Their putdowns on each other weren't serious in nature. They're just funny guys who are good buddies and rip on each in a friendly way.

Here's a link to the Bethel website that contains the course description. It probably doesn't answer your guestions though.

Here's a few other Boyd-related links:

http://www.bethel.edu/alumni/alumcoll/Focus/Fall/02/goodbye.htm

http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/

http://www.whchurch.org/content/page_1.htm

 

[beanieboy]

A friend of mine went to a concert at Bethel. I think it was Servant. She wanted to get the crowd going, so she and her friends stood up and started dancing. Someone came on and said, "We need to ask you to refrain from dancing, or we will end the concert."

Dancing to christian rock music. Wow. Sinful.

 

[adajos]

Beanie:

A friend of mine went to a concert at Bethel. I think it was Servant. She wanted to get the crowd going, so she and her friends stood up and started dancing. Someone came on and said, "We need to ask you to refrain from dancing, or we will end the concert."

Dancing to christian rock music. Wow. Sinful.

They're loosening up the "no dancing on campus rule." In fact, the sort of situation you're describing wouldn't be a problem now.

 

[Duder]

Brent -

I doubt seriously that you know “WHO” is the “Charis”. And “Peace” is something that that no religious person could know until they have vanquished all the enemies of their God. Of course, being the only person left alive, the soldier of the Lord would then, if truthful with himself, fall on his own sword.

Whoa! Hold on - I say - hold on there!

No religious person can know peace until they have vanquished all the enemies of their God? That statement has a curious symetry to it. The two kinds of people mentioned are cast in absolute terms - "no religious person" - "all the enemies of God". Reverse the subject/object order and you get the same kind of cocksure claim a thumping fundy would make: No enemy of God can know peace until they have vanquished all the religious people..

With your experience in taking examinations at the university, you must realize that the correct answer to a true/false question is most often "false" when it is phrased with absolutes like"always", "every" or "no".

So why would you make a dubious claim like this?

My guess is, you went into your religious studies on fire with enthusiasm, and you were so bitterly disappointed that today you hate what you used to love. And the reason you did not achieve what you expected has nothing to do with you, it must be because all religion is destructive and false. Am I close?

Well, take another look at things. I am a religious person and I am not the least bit interested in vanquishing anybody. If vanquishing was the major theme you got out of your religious studies, then I'd say that your focus was rather narrow.

____________

Hey, no worries about the name thing. I was joshing you a little bit with a tag line I always use when they get my name wrong.

 

[1Way]

Dancing is one thing, but

girls standing up to dance putting the spotlight of attention upon themselves in order "work up the crowd",

that situation seems like it may well have been in the flesh.

In any secular concert, such a thing would be an outright purposeful display of rebellion against godliness, promoting a "praise the woman" "praise the body" mentality, wow, just watch her do her thing, it is this sort of flaunting of sensuality that sells records for the secular media and I think it does not belong in Christianity. Neither men nor women should be sex objects, and women should be treated with respect and protected against immoral examples and exploitation.

Where do I draw the line? Not sure, but I vote against having women stand up and dance in order to "get the crowd going".

The allusion to the sensual instead of the spiritual seems too clear. They could have stood up and had their male friends raise signs against general sexual exploitation of women, including pictures of the bible and modest chaste women subjecting themselves in godly humility, as they should. Now that would be hard to put down at a Christian concert.

 

[BChristianK]

1way,

I gotta go, but I'll try to answer your question this evening.

Grace and Peace

 

[Brent2]

Whoa! Hold on - I say - hold on there!

LOL

Duder, relax. I didn't mean anything by it. Said it off the top of my head and any symmetry is coincidental.

But now this:
"My guess is, you went into your religious studies on fire with enthusiasm, and you were so bitterly disappointed that today you hate what you used to love. And the reason you did not achieve what you expected has nothing to do with you, it must be because all religion is destructive and false. Am I close?"

You are VERY close, but not quite. I'll go ahead and tell ya that I FIRMLY believe in religious rights. My point was the way religious people wanted to exercise their rights, but then attempt to exclude other people their rights. I said they should be outlawed to give them just a wee little taste of what they pour out on others. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you is the whole Law and the Prophets, but something that I've found completely lacking on these Discussion Boards. You might think that I became disillusioned with the Faith after being exposed to Textual Criticism, but it really wasn't that. I had been of the Pentecostal Holiness persuasion and I already knew that the Church was supposed to be led by the Spirit and not legal interpretations of the Bible. The disillusionment came after I began to get on Net Boards. Be it CARM, Walter Martin, Good News Cafe', or this one. They all turned out to be vicious. They would go ahead and say what they would normally only say behind your back. This caught my attention and I began to start noticing things that I had always overlook in the past. I put together things that I had lived through in Churches over the last 25 years of my adult life. I'm 44. Finding out the truth about the Bible was the icing on the cake. The puzzle came together and I realized that there was nothing to the Christian religion. The truth is bigger than the Christian religion. I think the New Agers and Near Death crowd are closer to the truth than anyone else out there. One thing I've come to realize is that these mean spirited, hateful, hell mongers are not "the truth". If they are what is in Heaven, I don't know anybody who would want to go there. They'll be fighting constantly. Hey, I've been Lutheran, Baptist, and Church of God. Years ago, I was going to school to be a Baptist minister. That turned out to be a joke. But, I've seen the Church fights. The Church politics. Vicious power plays. People cutting each others throat, so to speak, to gain control, get power. And eventually, get so out of control that the group would have to split. And every one of these groups thinks that "they" are the only ones going to Heaven. It's ridicules. You seem to be more insightful than some of the others in here. I can tell by your posts to me that you "think". That's a rare commodity on a Bible discussion Board. Most people just beat the drum of their favorite denomination and quote the traditions of their particular Church. Of course, if you disagree with them, they try to beat up the devil. If you manage to pin them to the wall by exposing all their foolishness, they'll call you names, question your intelligence, personal attacks, misrepresent and twist, and all sorts of dishonesty and meanness. It's very apparent that they are just typical people and that their "Christianity" has done nothing to change or improve them. So, unfortunately, I've had to conclude that there is nothing to Christianity. And anytime I start to forget, and I think I might go back, I just come to a Board like this and get another dose of medicine. A day or two is all it takes. Nope. No Church for me.

See Ya,
Brent

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Duder

By the way, it's "Duder". So that's what you call me. You know, that, or "Dude", or "His Dudeness" or "El Duderino", if you're not into the whole brevity thing . . . .

You've been waiting to say that for months, haven't you? :chuckle:

 

[1Way]

BChristianK - Ok, I guess I'll work backwards from the most recent to the less recent.

From your post #226, you said

Only you and the Lord knew what you meant by Proverbs 6:19 in Post #71. Only you can confirm if it was meant as a personal attack or not. And the Lord is the One you will have to answer to if you have used that verse inappropriately. I don’t even need to know at this point what your intentions were.

It is wrong to judge someone without first understanding them. You keep admitting a lack of clear understanding prior to judging, and then you say what I think is a big mistake, you say that not only do you not understand my intentions, you don't even want to know them. I could just stop right there and ask you to exonerate myself from your charges of wrong doing on the basis that your claims are based on insufficient understanding, and that you don't really even care to understand the nature of what actually happened. In the future I ask you to specifically care about my intentions, especially prior to judging me.

I was going to repost the entire post, and serve to argue this or that. Instead I will allow you the reasonable argument that although I think you are violating the shunning teachings, and that sewing discord may well be involved with this issue that many call being nicer than God, especially because our discussion is only starting, and because I do not know what will become of it, I will drop the reference, and just suggest that it serve us all as a preemptive warning to not be (purposefully) divisive. Sorry for allowing myself to be too broad and general with something that could be taken in the wrong way, and that I may have slightly jumped the gun with my judgment also.

So, you used exclusive language, and I objected, this is what I said

Seminal lexical
You intellectual exclusivist. Such big words for the masses to contemplate, even for lowly me.

and that was the start and finish of that entire put down. My derogatory comment of disapproval was isolated to that particular phraseology, so there is no reasonable reason to assume my comment, which was nearly jocular, should be slanderous upon you in a more general or broad way.

I did not want these things to get as out of hand. Here's my suggestion towards you for this one. I like to tell people who occasionally look at me sideways or start to get grumpy with me because I use a semi-intellectual 2 dollar sounding words now and then. I pose mock humility, I say, hey, you know how it is, I try to learn something new once or twice a year, it kind of keeps me fresh you know. So I smile and make fun about it, and so then usually people consider that it's ok to occasionally be pushed beyond their comfort zone once is a while, and they usually would feel more at ease since I would follow up with a causal explanation of the fancy word or words involved.

And you can skip a lot of that by filling in with contextual development during the usage, so you sort of teach and share at the same time. I am getting really good at that because to chat with a Christian about the open view, almost always brings up new terms they are not well familiar with.

I hope this helps clear things up.

God's grace and peace, including, but not always, the harsh stuff

 

[1Way]

BChristianK - Back in post 210, you said

Look, from what I can tell you are an intelligent person trying to do your best to follow the Lord. I can assure you that, although I think you are probably smarter than I am, I also endeavor to do the same. We’re going to have to spend a long time together in eternity. Let’s practice not calling each other names here, ok?
I’ll admit that I reacted to what I considered to be your attack on me using Proverbs 16. That was wrong and I apologize.

I wouldn't say I'm smarter, I'd say I am less nice, more in tune with godly righteousness and love which abhors evil and is not nicer than God, because to me, you are clearly trying to be nicer than God with the judge not bit. (ah ah ahh, wait please, that was just my "opinion" responding to your "opinion", your entitled and so am I)

I appreciate your attempts at making amends, even taking it on yourself to put it aside, but I'm more concerned about the name-calling bit. I agree with much of your point and the over all sentiment. But, (chuckles) I cannot allow name-calling to be put down in such a general fashion. Please consider the perhaps thousands of examples in God's word over name calling and branding and personal segregation especially when it comes to matters of right against wrong. It is UNloving and UNgodly (and nicer than God) to not oppose evil, and often times it is very appropriate to call people names and mock them, or chide them, make sport, maybe even just playfully taunt also.

I'm afraid that because I don't want to be nicer than God, if I dare make any concerns or judgments that are not exactly right, then you'll just have to learn to deal with my lack of perfection, because I simply do not want to slip into the hypocrisy of not opposing evil. Isn't that fair to ask?

So, although some name calling can be bad, and some name calling can be good, we should not say that name calling just should not be happening because we are both Christians, because I can always say that name calling should be happening because we are both Christians. Here's the new paradigm perspective. If you respond well even if the charges may not exactly be perfectly correct, then all will likely be well, if you respond with harshness or bitterness, then the situation is manifest. Let the response be as introspectively concerned as the initial charges.

(I hope these slide well, we might be getting back to the original debate soon... opps, levying bias to protect my sense of point winning, just agree to everything 1way says -- subliminal man.)

 

[BChristianK]

IWay, hopefully this will provide an answer to your question regarding the debate between Boyd and William Lane Craig

Taken from Greg Boyd’s rebuttal to William Lane Craig’s presentation of “Middle Knowledge”

Would-Counterfactuals and Might Counterfactuals

I am persuaded that Craig is correct in claiming that propositions expressing counterfactuals of creaturely freedom have an eternal truth value and thus that God knows them as true or false. Where Craig and other classical Molinists err, I believe, is in assuming that counterfactuals are exclusively about what agents would or would not do. These do not exhaust the logical possibilities of counterfactual propositions. The logical antithesis of the statement “agent X would do Y in situation Z” is not the statement “agent X would not do Y in situation Z. This is a contrary proposition, not a contradictory proposition. The logical antithesis of “agent X would do Y in Situation Z” is rather the statement “agent X might not do Y in situation Z.” This latter statement also has an eternal truth value and hence must be known by God.

Boyd will conclude that Craig’s position that God knows what every person would do in any situation is a subtle move against libertarian freedom. If God’s foreknowledge is characterized by knowing what I will do if JosephofMessiah replies to my post tonight, then I am not truly free to choose my response if JOM replies to my post tonight.

It sets my behavior as the consequent of a logical equation that eliminates free choice.
If JOM replies to BCK’s post tonight, BCK will likewise reply tonight.
In this equation, I don’t have a choice of replying or not replying if JOM posts his response tonight. In a true libertarian free will paradigm, God would know what I might do. In other words, God would know that I could reply tonight or I could go to bed early and watch the LOTR trilogy before I drift off to sleep.
In Craig’s “Middle Knowledge” scenario. God knows what antecedent causes would cause me to freely choose to watch the LOTR and fall asleep but since JOM replying tonight isn’t one of those causes, I won’t and there’s nothing I can do about it.
Boyd points out that this really isn’t libertarian free will, and I agree with him.

Does this make sense?
Boyd Continues:

If we include might-counterfactuals among God’s middle knowledge, we arrive at the following neo-Molinist position: Between God’s pre-creational knowledge of all logical possibilities and God’s pre-creational knowledge of what will come to pass is God’s “middle knowledge” of what free agents might or might not do in certain situations as well as of what free agents would do in other situations. If it is true that agents X might or might not do Y in situation Z, it is false that agent X would do Y in situation Z and vice versa.

Here Boyd disagrees with Craig’s assertion that God knows for certain what each person will do in any given situation. Boyd says that God’s knowledge is more precisely a knowledge of what each person might do in any given situation.

On the basis of this knowledge, God chooses to have actualized the possible world that best suits his sovereign purpose. The world God chooses to be actualized, however, is more precisely described as delimited set of possible worlds, any one of which might be actualized as if it were the only possible world that could be actualized.

Hope this helps to clarify the distinction.

Grace and Peace

 

[LightSon]

Brent,

Originally posted by Brent

Why does it matter what I believe? Will my belief change anything? Can I make God this or that by "thinking" it? Would he not be what He is regardless of my belief?

Our belief is important. No, you cannot change God by what you think, but what you think about God will affect the degree to which you allow yourself to be brought into conformity to God's will.

Originally posted by Brent
" What does your god look like?"

~~~"Look" ?!?! We see when light particles are reflected off physical surfaces, collected by physical eyes, converted to electrical signals and interpreted by a flesh brain. All of which perish at death. So, how am I gonna "see"?

Do I need to say that I used the term "look" in a less than literal sense? I think you knew this. Perhaps I should have asked, "what do you percieve to be God's key characteristics"?

Originally posted by Brent
"What are his values?"

~~~What is that? If it is important, then surely He would have made sure everyone was aware of them. The spotty evolution of the New Testament, with it's contradiction, mistakes and forgeries is hardly a definitive "word" from God. After all, Jesus didn't write anything. Either God doesn't care if we perish or it must not have been important.


"Is he good?"

~~~Compared to what? When does something go from being "good" to "bad"? Moses says He is good. Pharaoh says He is bad.



"Is he willing and able to hold his creatures accountable for wrongdoing?"

~~~If God is "all-powerful", "all-knowing", and "in control", then , I have to ask you, what is "wrongdoing"?


"Des your god even have a standard to which he would hold us accountable?"

~~~These kind of questions reveal more about you than me. They reveal the picture that you have of God. I see you hanging in a balance with a stern and indignant super being standing over you, watching to see if you pass the test. It's a frightening picture, but it probably is Biblical. However, it's not true.

Brent

Of course I am asking question from my perspective. I hope to have a healthy respect for God. Your problem is that you've lost the fear of the Lord and now you run at the mouth with flippant assertions about who He is.

I find it interesting that you want to dismiss the possibility of any explicit knowledge of God, yet make assertions about what is "not true". This is the PureX syndrome. i.e. "I absolutely know that there are no absolutes". Or in your case, "I abolutely do not know what God is like, but I know He is not like the Bible says He is." I hope you can percieve the foolishness of that position.

Your jadedness is downright painful. I can't tell to what degree you have tasted of God's goodness, but it is clear that you have apostasized and have become an enemy of God and His word. You've struggled to find peace in "Lutheran, Baptist, and Church of God," camps and have walked away in somewhat of a disillusioned state of mind, citing "church fights...Church politics...[and] Vicious power plays". I do not doubt what you have experienced. Perhaps you never learned to put your trust in God and not in men. And now you've turned to drink. I've been down that road and it is a dead end. There is no peace of mind in a bottle or in drugs.

I do not have all the answers, but I pray that my faith does not wane as yours has, because I fear becomming like you: bitterness of soul and bitter towards God and His Word. Again, there is no peace without God's Spirit working in us.

Many times I have pondered the encounter with Jesus in John 6:--
"67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."

For all I do not know, at the end of the day I must put my trust in Christ and what He has said. I have no place else to go. Either Christ is the light of the world and my future is equally bright, or we are all destined for the oblivion of the eternal dustbin.

Why not get up and return to your Father? Stop feeding with the swine.

 

[BChristianK]

1Way:

It is wrong to judge someone without first understanding them. You keep admitting a lack of clear understanding prior to judging, and then you say what I think is a big mistake, you say that not only do you not understand my intentions, you don't even want to know them.

Point well taken.

I could just stop right there and ask you to exonerate myself from your charges of wrong doing on the basis that your claims are based on insufficient understanding, and that you don't really even care to understand the nature of what actually happened.

You could, I’m weary of arguing who said what when and who was wrong in doing so. You know what you meant. I don’t know why you continue to argue as if you are a third party in the room arbitrating the dispute.
I may not know with certainty what the reason for your name calling or usage of proverbs 6 was all about, but you do.
So you could very well ask me to exonerate you, and if you did you would be fully exonerated in the eyes of TOL, but those eyes aren’t the most important ones, are they?

I was going to repost the entire post, and serve to argue this or that. Instead I will allow you the reasonable argument that although I think you are violating the shunning teachings, and that sewing discord may well be involved with this issue that many call being nicer than God, especially because our discussion is only starting, and because I do not know what will become of it, I will drop the reference, and just suggest that it serve us all as a preemptive warning to not be (purposefully) divisive.

Ok, thanks for the retraction. Now, since proverbs 6 was only a peripheral argument in our conversation, I would still appreciate some explanation to why you continue to claim I am violating the shunning teachings.
I’ve provided the following responses to your claims:

Now lets recap.

So far you have provided us with:
1 Cor 11:31, which I have dealt with above.

1 Cor 5:11: I have shown that this verse applies to judging within the brethren only.

Proverbs 6:16: This has nothing to do with judging but rather was used as a billy-club to attack me for disagreeing with Clete.

Heb 12:23 Which describes God as Judge not us.

John 5:22 Which describes Christ as Judge not us.

1 Cor 6:2 which you side with Turbo as being at the consummation of all things. And verse 3 which I have shown applies to judgment within the church not outside.

1 Cor 2:15 which carries the word Judge in the connotation of appraisal (as the NAU translates it), not executing sentencing or punishments such as shunning.

John 7:24 Which I showed you carried the connotation of rightly holding an opinion in accordance with righteousness and not according to appearance and that this verse has nothing to do with executing punishment (shunning) on those in the outside world.

Finally the only other verse you have alluded to is Romans 12:9 which doesn’t deal with judgment at all but rather is an admonition to abhor evil and cling to what is good.

So while you and Clete keep tag teaming this issue and patting each other on the back when you post, I don’t see a single scripture that confirms Clete’s determination to:

shun as many homos as I come in contact with.

or your refusal to agree to my amendment of that statement, or your continued argument that his doing so is godly while the rest of us are ungodly pro-homos.

If you’ve got a scripture that confirms Clete’s statement and your defense of it, by all means post it, but contrary to your assertion that you “judge the world by the rest of the bible (which I do believe you desire to do),” you are nonetheless, as of this post, derelict in providing even one scripture that supports your conclusion.

I’ve greened out (can't figure out strikethrough) Proverbs 6:19 since that has been removed by you. But the rest addresses your statement that I am misusing the shunning passages. So I would appreciate an exegetical answer to why this is the case rather than your claim that it is so. Fair?

Regarding your reference to me as an intellectual exclusivist you said:

My derogatory comment of disapproval was isolated to that particular phraseology, so there is no reasonable reason to assume my comment, which was nearly jocular, should be slanderous upon you in a more general or broad way.

Cool.
Now you said:

did not want these things to get as out of hand. Here's my suggestion towards you for this one. I like to tell people who occasionally look at me sideways or start to get grumpy with me because I use a semi-intellectual 2 dollar sounding words now and then. I pose mock humility, I say, hey, you know how it is, I try to learn something new once or twice a year, it kind of keeps me fresh you know. So I smile and make fun about it, and so then usually people consider that it's ok to occasionally be pushed beyond their comfort zone once is a while, and they usually would feel more at ease since I would follow up with a causal explanation of the fancy word or words involved.

And you can skip a lot of that by filling in with contextual development during the usage, so you sort of teach and share at the same time. I am getting really good at that because to chat with a Christian about the open view, almost always brings up new terms they are not well familiar with.

Thanks for the tip, this is useful criticism.


I'll respond to your next post with another post of my own.

Grace and Peace

 

[BChristianK]

1Way said:

I wouldn't say I'm smarter, I'd say I am less nice, more in tune with godly righteousness and love which abhors evil and is not nicer than God, because to me, you are clearly trying to be nicer than God with the judge not bit. (ah ah ahh, wait please, that was just my "opinion" responding to your "opinion", your entitled and so am I)

Your free to hold any opinion of me you like.

I appreciate your attempts at making amends, even taking it on yourself to put it aside, but I'm more concerned about the name-calling bit. I agree with much of your point and the over all sentiment. But, (chuckles) I cannot allow name-calling to be put down in such a general fashion. Please consider the perhaps thousands of examples in God's word over name calling and branding and personal segregation especially when it comes to matters of right against wrong. It is UNloving and UNgodly (and nicer than God) to not oppose evil, and often times it is very appropriate to call people names and mock them, or chide them, make sport, maybe even just playfully taunt also.

I’m not arguing we shouldn’t appose evil. I’m just saying that cursing the darkness isn’t particularly affective.
How many people have you won to Christ after making fun of them?

I understand there are biblical examples of mocking such as Elijah’s mocking of the Idolaters in 1 Kings and that Jesus got righteously indignant with the Pharisees on a few occasions. But to there are a few complications to using these as texts thas liscense. I’m not worshiping Baal, and you’re not Jesus. There are also perhaps thousands of examples where we are admonished to be peacemakers, good tempered, kind and compassionate.

So, if it makes you feel better. Mock, taunt, make sport or chide me all you like.

Now you say:

So, although some name calling can be bad, and some name calling can be good, we should not say that name calling just should not be happening because we are both Christians, because I can always say that name calling should be happening because we are both Christians.

I’m sure that argument will draw all sorts of applause on this website. But you gave me some helpful advise in the last post now allow me to return the favor. If you really have a chance to author a section in a local Christian publication, I’d stow the name calling for that article. They won’t be impressed with your attempt to justify personal chiding, mocking, or taunting. If they think it is done in bad form, they’ll just go to press and you’ll notice, much to your chagrin, that your name and section is absent from the publication.

I hope these slide well, we might be getting back to the original debate soon...

I likewise hope we will get back to the original debate soon….

Grace and Peace

 

[1Way]

BCK - Ok, that helps, but some is confusing. I am mostly pleased to find the amount of agreement that I used to question, especially about the issue around varying levels of certainty. Boyd seems to stipulate clearly that the issue of the "maybe", "maybe not" (=uncertainty) is a real issue for the knowledge of God, and as such, also the lack of certainty with God's knowledge. And of course, if you are not an open theist, then you can not allow uncertainty in the mind of God concerning yet future things.

But some things seem rather counter clear. I hate the use of libertarian free will, there is no other kind of free will other than free will. You have a will that is free from control except its own person, or you have a will that is at least to some degree not free from foreign control. There is no other reasonable options. I realize that he is most likely using the terms because of the sake of his opponents, but, he seems smarter than all that. Every time someone has explained to me the nature of the differences between compatiblistic and libertarian free will, it always ends up with only one actually free will, and all other will's are actually not free from foreign control, so I see no reason for Boyd to tacitly affirm that distinction which I would suspect he agrees with my either or view... maybe?

Speaking of counter. What in the non-counter world is all this bees wax having to do with counter factuals??? Is this the part of the debate having to do with what might be, but is not or will not be? So after it does not happen, God knew that as a counter factual? If so, why not just say, it is a possible outcome, speak about the world of possibilities, etc.

Does Boyd think that God has theoretical knowledge of everything that will happen from before the foundation of the world and throughout all of eternity, like before He created this world, do you think that Boyd presupposes that God includes in His mind of possibilities, the world as it actually happens for all of eternity??? Even though that knowledge may be to some extent uncertain.

I say that there is a limit to even God's powers of prediction and assessments of all yet future possibilities. I guess it comes down to this, at the moment prior to creation (or any other point, but that point seems crucial), are the possibilities for what might happen less than infinite, or are these options infinite? If they are infinite, and I think they are, then God could not know it all, since there is no "all" or "total" in an actual infinite, He could only know some of it, the practical/reasonable part.

If there is a limited number of options, then God could, at least theoretically include in His foreknowledge over all yet future possibilities concerning what will actually take place! But, since you can multiply the free will choices by eternity, since there is no good reason to assume that we saved people will ever loose our free will, so then, just by considering eternity, God could not possibly foreknow all yet future outcomes, because that would mean that God could have a total knowledge of a thing that can not be totaled, which is a contradiction in terms, therefore God's foreknowledge of even possible things, is limited and not exhaustive due to the fact of non-contradiction and that free will continues for all of eternity. I very much wonder if Boyd would agree to that much. But I think he is subject to somehow accepting the libertarian and compatiblistic free will ideas (at least superficially for the sake of the debate, but still), and I think I've heard that he thinks that God has theoretical knowledge of "all" yet future possibilities.

Thanks for the food for thought.

 

[1Way]

BCK - You said

Your free to hold any opinion of me you like.

You know, that is offensive to me. But I wont hold it against you just yet. God says to not let your good be spoken of as evil. So from me to you, if someone trashed you, and you didn't care what someone else said, I would care for your sake for the sake of goodness and righteousness. You should honestly care what others think about you and about others. What we think matters.

You said

I’m not arguing we shouldn’t appose evil. I’m just saying that cursing the darkness isn’t particularly affective.
How many people have you won to Christ after making fun of them?

Oh, boy, this is not going as well as I had hoped. We should not use effectiveness as the direction of our life! It is good to consider effectiveness, but the more important moral concern is to do right and risk the consequences! The fact is that God's way is the best way, and the road to Romans step one is that you are WRONG pal! Wake up and smell the fire and brimstone, you need to get right with God or meeting your maker will be one terrible damnable issue. So step one's message is the result of the long arm of the law, that every man is a sinner and is condemned already unless he repents. You MUST make them understand that they are sick and dying, which is condemning them which is the first step to wining them to Christ! Do right, abhor evil, do not pretend to win someone to Christ by short circuiting the truth.

Next you say

I understand there are biblical examples of mocking such as Elijah’s mocking of the Idolaters in 1 Kings and that Jesus got righteously indignant with the Pharisees on a few occasions. But to there are a few complications to using these as texts thas liscense. I’m not worshiping Baal, and you’re not Jesus. There are also perhaps thousands of examples where we are admonished to be peacemakers, good tempered, kind and compassionate.

So, if it makes you feel better. Mock, taunt, make sport or chide me all you like.

Woe to you who mix good for evil, night and day, bitter for sweet. You are not being godly by neglecting the issue of absolute right and wrong. You say, anyone can say whatever they want, it does not affect you. And that is anti-righteous and anti-godly, you should care deeply what people say. There are no complications, I am not saying to judge with Godlike powers as only God can, I am saying that God was wise and good when He committed judgment into our hands even though God was wise enough to pre-consider your errant objection, that we are not God, so that complication should preclude us from judging, God wisely evaluated that obvious objection, and decided to command us to judge anyway. Being a peacemaker and being good tempered and kind and compassionate are ALL within the bounds of godly love that is not hypocritical! You are arguing my side now, please stay on one side or the other, you are too confusing as it is already.

It is as kind and loving as could possibly be to judge against evil, to personally reject the heretic and sexually immoral etc. YOU CAN NOT BE NICER THAN GOD, even though you keep trying. Also, you keep setting up the nice and soft and friendly stuff as opposed to the harsh side of things that includes abhorrence against evil. You walk both party lines, which is duplicity, the fact is that by so doing, you walk neither consistently. Either you actually accept abhorrence of evil as what keeps one's love from hypocrisy, or you are nicer than God, and every time someone argues, ya but you should also remember to be nice and loving, you are being nicer than God. IT IS NICE AND PEACABLE AND LOVING TO ABHORE EVIL. It is the best and most godly response, you simply cannot improve upon God's ways, and God's ways are not exclusive as though in contrast against each other.

Sure, kindness and hospitality "seems" the opposite of shunning or putting someone to death, but, since all godly harsh responses against evil are not meaningless worthless teachings, we know that they are loving due to the at length qualifications of the love chapter. So godly love extends into all godly areas of life, there is no substantial exclusiveness between any of God's attributes and ways, so please stop pretending like being harsh and judgmental needs to be brought into moderation through the baptism of love. That is putting love and righteousness at odds from each other, and God does not do that, God validates all godliness as being meaningful and with agape, all from the harshest to the softest side of things.

You said

I’m sure that argument will draw all sorts of applause on this website. But you gave me some helpful advise in the last post now allow me to return the favor. If you really have a chance to author a section in a local Christian publication, I’d stow the name calling for that article. They won’t be impressed with your attempt to justify personal chiding, mocking, or taunting. If they think it is done in bad form, they’ll just go to press and you’ll notice, much to your chagrin, that your name and section is absent from the publication.

I agree, and that is why I'd rather name call and please God than be too nice and please men. Do right and risk the consequences. Stop trying to be nicer than God.

Ok, that concludes this broadcast day. You are trying to be nicer than God, that is name calling, I'm judging you, and I would do the same if you were not a self professing believer in God. I'm not looking forward to your response, but I am looking forward to the meet of this debate.

There is no unloving godliness. God includes all His attributes, not just the softer, kinder, more gentile stuff. When God committed genocide, when God will do battle at the last stand of all last stands and vanquishes death and darkness and evil, God will be acting in full accordance to agape! There is no double standard, its all of love, kind or unkind, soft or harsh, if it's right and godly, it's AGAPE! If it's not from love, it's trash, and God's righteousness and justice and goodness is holy and great and awesome, it is not worthless. Love brings it all together, love unifies it is not divided.

Wow, I bet this puts things out another week or more. Oh well, do right and be patient.

 

[BChristianK]

1Way:

But some things seem rather counter clear. I hate the use of libertarian free will, there is no other kind of free will other than free will. You have a will that is free from control except its own person, or you have a will that is at least to some degree not free from foreign control. There is no other reasonable options. I realize that he is most likely using the terms because of the sake of his opponents, but, he seems smarter than all that. Every time someone has explained to me the nature of the differences between compatiblistic and libertarian free will, it always ends up with only one actually free will, and all other will's are actually not free from foreign control, so I see no reason for Boyd to tacitly affirm that distinction which I would suspect he agrees with my either or view... maybe?

I think so, I certainly would. I don’t think Boyd sees compatablistic free well as actual free will. His criticism of Classical Molinism points us toward such that conclusion.

Second, classic Molinism is philosophically problematic. In this view, every possible decision any possible free agent might ever make in any possible world is an eternal fact. Every future free decision and every possible future free decision is exhaustively settled in eternity before it takes place. How do we account for this eternal settledness? Craig concedes that it cannot exist because God wills it to exist, for that would constitute determinism. But neither can this eternal settledness exist because agents other than God will it to exist, for eternal settledness exists because agents other than God will it to exist, for created agents are not eternal, and Craig rightly denies retroactive causation. Moreover, agents never will the counterfactuals that are supposedly true about them. They are what the agent would have willed had they been created in a different possible world.
We are left then with the unappealing alternative of denying that anything grounds the eternal settledness of future free acts and of counterfactuals of every possible situation was simply there – without any sufficient reason to account for it. (145)

You asked:

Speaking of counter. What in the non-counter world is all this bees wax having to do with counter factuals??? Is this the part of the debate having to do with what might be, but is not or will not be?

Yup. It is an essential part of the “Middle knowledge position.” Middle knowledge presupposes that God knows not only what will happen (factual knowledge) but would have happened (Counterfactual knowledge).

So after it does not happen, God knew that as a counter factual?

The whole argument posits God’s knowledge either before the creation or shortly thereafter. God knows both what will happen and what could have happened all up front, according to Craig.

If so, why not just say, it is a possible outcome, speak about the world of possibilities, etc.

Because for Craig, there aren’t just possible outcomes. They are factual outcomes or counterfactual outcomes. For Craig, there is no might for free will agents, there is only will or won’t. For Boyd there are possible outcomes.

Does Boyd think that God has theoretical knowledge of everything that will happen from before the foundation of the world and throughout all of eternity, like before He created this world, do you think that Boyd presupposes that God includes in His mind of possibilities, the world as it actually happens for all of eternity???

It appears so. It appears that Boyd allows for God to have theoretical knowledge of what might happen from beginning to end according to a near infinite number of scenario’s and then Boy’d posits that God excludes those possible scenario’s that don’t produce the outcomes He desires for the fulfillment of His purposes.

Boyd Continues:
If we include might-counterfactuals among God’s middle knowledge, we arrive at the following neo-Molinist position: Between God’s pre-creational knowledge of all logical possibilities and God’s pre-creational knowledge of what will come to pass is God’s “middle knowledge” of what free agents might or might not do in certain situations as well as of what free agents would do in other situations. (Page 146.)

I say that there is a limit to even God's powers of prediction and assessments of all yet future possibilities. I guess it comes down to this, at the moment prior to creation (or any other point, but that point seems crucial), are the possibilities for what might happen less than infinite, or are these options infinite?

I think Boyd (by virtue of the book) might say they are less than infinite. Infinite in our estimation maybe, but God knows all possible permutations of all possible scenerios, so God could never be outwitted by the actions of His creation.

A third chess master is confident of victory even though she is playing a real person, not a computer. Though she cannot be certain of how her opponent will move, for her opponent is a free agent, she is certain that she can wisely out maneuver him. This chess master does not foreknow exactly what moves her opponent will make,but she perfectly anticipates all the moves her opponent might make…

Boyd claims that the third chess master is analogous to God in the Open View. This suggests to me that Boyd would argue that God, though not knowing for certainty, the decisions of free will agents, knows what decisions could be made, and this from the beginning.

If they are infinite, and I think they are, then God could not know it all, since there is no "all" or "total" in an actual infinite, He could only know some of it, the practical/reasonable part.

Well, if God can’t know it all. Then the charge that the Open View posits a non-Omniscient God is valid. If God can know it all but all doesn’t include the future decisions of free will agents, for these are not realized facts, then you salvage God’s Omniscience. I think that is what Boyd does.

If there is a limited number of options, then God could, at least theoretically include in His foreknowledge over all yet future possibilities concerning what will actually take place!

Right, I think that’s the point. He sees all possibilities so He perfectly anticipates the choices of all free will agents and thus His plans are never thwarted.

But, since you can multiply the free will choices by eternity, since there is no good reason to assume that we saved people will ever loose our free will, so then, just by considering eternity, God could not possibly foreknow all yet future outcomes, because that would mean that God could have a total knowledge of a thing that can not be totaled, which is a contradiction in terms, therefore God's foreknowledge of even possible things, is limited and not exhaustive due to the fact of non-contradiction and that free will continues for all of eternity.

Well, I would disagree. I think Boyd might to. I don’t think that the number of permutations of possible future outcomes is limitless. I think it is limited based on the fact that there will be a finite number of people, and those people have finite existences in space and time. Since we can’t be more than one place at one time, that limits the choices we can make.
A Mongol on horseback can’t make the choice to ride to the moon. Choices are real but they are still limited by our creatureliness.
It is certainly a vast body of information, but I would argue, not infinite.
There are some choices where you have a finite number of options. You can choose Christ or no, there is no third option. So we see microcosmic instances of finite choice options, why would we assume that the macrocosm is infinite?

I very much wonder if Boyd would agree to that much. But I think he is subject to somehow accepting the libertarian and compatiblistic free will ideas (at least superficially for the sake of the debate, but still), and I think I've heard that he thinks that God has theoretical knowledge of "all" yet future possibilities.

Thanks for the food for thought.

That’s certainly my take on where he stands. True, libertarian freedom, but theoretical knowledge on all future possibilities.

Grace and Peace

 

[Brent2]

LightSon,
Well... I'm surprised. That was a very decent response. On the one hand, you didn't compromise your position as a Christian, but on the other, you didn't resort to mean, hateful, anger. Thank-you.

To clarify myself a little further, I don't have any harsh feelings toward God. "I love your Christ, but I hate your Christians".

I used to claim to know it all. Now, I claim to know very little, but I'm sure that some things JUST CAN NOT BE.

But, thanks for your kind response.

Later,
Brent