Theodicy
Re: Theodicy
Mattrose,
I think those questions are too simplistic and cannot be answered this way. We want to create boxes and label them "allow" & "will" with circles inside the boxes labeled "withdraw" & "act directly."
The problem is that unless God tells us, all we can do is guess about which box to put an event in. And then trying to decide which circle to use is even more difficult! When it comes to God, are "withdraw" and "act directly" even distinguishable? When God who is Spirit uses Babylonian swords to punish his people, is he acting directly or does it have to be miraculous intervention to make it into that circle? What does withdraw even mean? Is there a force field--an invisible cage--around evil people or nations that God turns on and off? Or a hedge of protection (perhaps angels with flaming swords?) around some people that God occasionally removes?
I think those questions are too simplistic and cannot be answered this way. We want to create boxes and label them "allow" & "will" with circles inside the boxes labeled "withdraw" & "act directly."
The problem is that unless God tells us, all we can do is guess about which box to put an event in. And then trying to decide which circle to use is even more difficult! When it comes to God, are "withdraw" and "act directly" even distinguishable? When God who is Spirit uses Babylonian swords to punish his people, is he acting directly or does it have to be miraculous intervention to make it into that circle? What does withdraw even mean? Is there a force field--an invisible cage--around evil people or nations that God turns on and off? Or a hedge of protection (perhaps angels with flaming swords?) around some people that God occasionally removes?
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen
~Garry Friesen
Re: Theodicy
Certainly God didn't tell us
That is why we're having this discussion (it's a theological discussion)
All theological discussion is somewhat speculative.
That's all I'm doing. Speculating about boxes and circles (to use your terms) that seem to best fit with what I understand about God's nature. I don't intend to come across as if I'm making some authoritative statement. Most of my thoughts in this thread have been in defense of Greg Boyd's speculative theology and/or against Calvinistic notions of God manipulating every aspect of every event. You may or may not have different fish to fry in this discussion, causing us to seem at odds to a degree that is probably not quite accurate.
That is why we're having this discussion (it's a theological discussion)
All theological discussion is somewhat speculative.
That's all I'm doing. Speculating about boxes and circles (to use your terms) that seem to best fit with what I understand about God's nature. I don't intend to come across as if I'm making some authoritative statement. Most of my thoughts in this thread have been in defense of Greg Boyd's speculative theology and/or against Calvinistic notions of God manipulating every aspect of every event. You may or may not have different fish to fry in this discussion, causing us to seem at odds to a degree that is probably not quite accurate.
Re: Theodicy
But, to continue speculating, let me attempt to answer your questions from my perspective
To the naked eye? Not necessarily. But theologically I'd say it is a pretty important distinction.psimmond wrote:When it comes to God, are "withdraw" and "act directly" even distinguishable?
I already stated that I believe God withdrew his protection from Jerusalem. Babylon did what Babylon does. I don't think God was manipulating their march or even inspiring the idea to come to Jerusalem.When God who is Spirit uses Babylonian swords to punish his people, is he acting directly or does it have to be miraculous intervention to make it into that circle?
I don't know. What sort of things happened to King Saul when the Spirit of God withdrew from him? How did those things lead to his destruction?What does withdraw even mean? Is there a force field--an invisible cage--around evil people or nations that God turns on and off? Or a hedge of protection (perhaps angels with flaming swords?) around some people that God occasionally removes?
Re: Theodicy
Hi Mattrose,
I think the discussion and speculation is good. I'm not trying to shut it down.
When it comes to God's sovereignty, I think Calvinists are closer to the truth than Arminians. (When it comes to free will, I think Arminians are closer to the truth
. ) Arminians sometimes sound a lot like Deists. God is sitting on his throne and every now and then he reaches down and manipulates or tweaks things here on earth.
I think prophesy shows that God has ordered this world in such a way that the plan he made before the act of creation is being incrementally fulfilled. The things that we do "of our own volition" are in actuality influenced by numerous factors that God put into place. Moses couldn't have led the Hebrew people to the promised land if God had not arranged the world in such a way that a young man many years earlier was born into a family with brothers who would grow to despise him and would sell him into slavery. The famine wasn't a random ecological phenomenon. God created the world in such a way that a famine would occur in this part of the world at a precise point in history that coincided with Joseph being elevated to a position of leadership in Egypt.
Judas and Herod and Pilate were all acting "of their own volition," yet Luke writes in Acts:
And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, "'Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed'--for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. Act 4:24-28
The truth is everything can ultimately be pinned on God because he created this world with perfect foreknowledge. God created a world in which a man named Cain would murder his brother. God created a world in which a man named Adolf Hitler would become a leader and murder millions. God knew all of these events would take place before he created a single atom! Fully aware of the ramifications, God deemed it good to create this world because he knew that this world would be a good world in which his plan would be accomplished. (Yes, I'm a Molinist
.)
God arranged the world in such a way that the Assyrians would take out the northern kingdom and the Babylonians would take out the southern kingdom. God chose to use free-will agents to carry out these judgments, but he could have used an angel of death, meteorites, etc. Theologically, would it have made a difference?
I think the discussion and speculation is good. I'm not trying to shut it down.
When it comes to God's sovereignty, I think Calvinists are closer to the truth than Arminians. (When it comes to free will, I think Arminians are closer to the truth

I think prophesy shows that God has ordered this world in such a way that the plan he made before the act of creation is being incrementally fulfilled. The things that we do "of our own volition" are in actuality influenced by numerous factors that God put into place. Moses couldn't have led the Hebrew people to the promised land if God had not arranged the world in such a way that a young man many years earlier was born into a family with brothers who would grow to despise him and would sell him into slavery. The famine wasn't a random ecological phenomenon. God created the world in such a way that a famine would occur in this part of the world at a precise point in history that coincided with Joseph being elevated to a position of leadership in Egypt.
Judas and Herod and Pilate were all acting "of their own volition," yet Luke writes in Acts:
And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, "'Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed'--for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. Act 4:24-28
I wrote: When it comes to God, are "withdraw" and "act directly" even distinguishable?
Why is it important theologically? Is it important because it enables us to distance God from distasteful events in history? We can say God didn't have anything to do with it; he just withdrew his presence.Mattrose responded with: To the naked eye? Not necessarily. But theologically I'd say it is a pretty important distinction.
The truth is everything can ultimately be pinned on God because he created this world with perfect foreknowledge. God created a world in which a man named Cain would murder his brother. God created a world in which a man named Adolf Hitler would become a leader and murder millions. God knew all of these events would take place before he created a single atom! Fully aware of the ramifications, God deemed it good to create this world because he knew that this world would be a good world in which his plan would be accomplished. (Yes, I'm a Molinist

God arranged the world in such a way that the Assyrians would take out the northern kingdom and the Babylonians would take out the southern kingdom. God chose to use free-will agents to carry out these judgments, but he could have used an angel of death, meteorites, etc. Theologically, would it have made a difference?
It can't mean that God's presence was absent since scripture tells us there is no place on this earth where God is not present. We do know that in the Old Testament, God's Spirit would come upon people for a time enabling them to do supernatural feats and then depart; however, the commentaries I've read suggest that God removed the Spiritual gifts he had previously bestowed on Saul: wisdom, prophecy, etc. I think this was probably the case.Mattrose wrote: What sort of things happened to King Saul when the Spirit of God withdrew from him?
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen
~Garry Friesen
Re: Theodicy
Hi psimmond,
I am very close to your view expressed in your last post, especially this:
Earlier in this thread Ian posted:
He likens a shadow to a negative but a shadow and a negative are two very different things. A shadow gives some accurate information about the object casting the shadow. And in the case of a negative image, all the information is there. He says "violent images (of God in OT) point to the cross the same way a shadow points to reality", meaning a negative contrast to reality. He goes on to say the "violent" pictures of God in the OT do not show what God is like, but they show what He is not like! On the cross Jesus appeared to be a guilty sinner without being a sinner and likewise everything ugly about God in the OT is allowed so others who actually do the bad deeds impact how God was perceived. God allowed it but never participated.
In his sermon, Boyd is greatly distressed by Jeremiah 13:14 which He descibes as a horrific picture of God smashing babies:
Jeremiah 13:14, New American Standard Bible (NASB)
14. I will dash them against each other, both the fathers and the sons together,” declares the Lord. “I will not show pity nor be sorry nor have compassion so as not to destroy them.
But Boyd gets God off the hook by saying the evil acts were actually done by men which in his view relieves God of any responsibility. This is strange thinking to me; God is concerned with sparrows but a deist when it comes to people.
Boyd never mentions the wars of Joshua:
Joshua 10:7-14, New American Standard Bible (NASB)
7. So Joshua went up from Gilgal, he and all the people of war with him and all the valiant warriors. 8. The Lord said to Joshua, “Do not fear them, for I have given them into your hands; not one of them shall stand before you.” 9. So Joshua came upon them suddenly by marching all night from Gilgal. 10. And the Lord confounded them before Israel, and He slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and pursued them by the way of the ascent of Beth-horon and struck them as far as Azekah and Makkedah. 11. As they fled from before Israel, while they were at the descent of Beth-horon, the Lord threw large stones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and they died; there were more who died from the hailstones than those whom the sons of Israel killed with the sword.
12. Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,
“O sun, stand still at Gibeon,
And O moon in the valley of Aijalon.”
13. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.
Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. 14. There was no day like that before it or after it, when the Lord listened to the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.
God was obviously actively involved here, not to mention the Noahic flood, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. Boyd's theodicy is a failure. If the OT picture of God was inaccurate, rather than, as I think, incomplete, it seems to me Jesus would have said something about it. But He seemed to hold the "Law and Prophets" in high regard.
I am very close to your view expressed in your last post, especially this:
As Jesus' "not a sparrow falls" comment indicates, God's sovereign superintendence of creation is much more extensive than is usually acknowledged here.When it comes to God's sovereignty, I think Calvinists are closer to the truth than Arminians. (When it comes to free will, I think Arminians are closer to the truth . ) Arminians sometimes sound a lot like Deists. God is sitting on his throne and every now and then he reaches down and manipulates or tweaks things here on earth.
Earlier in this thread Ian posted:
I don't know how many have listened to Boyd's sermon "Shadow of the Cross" but, IMO, he is seriously off-track. Boyd says the OT "shadows" point to reality the way a negative points to the real thing - it is a negative contrast.Presumably Doug this sermon by Greg Boyd would bring forth steams of incredulity from your ears:
http://whchurch.org/blog/6700/shadow-of-the-cross
He likens a shadow to a negative but a shadow and a negative are two very different things. A shadow gives some accurate information about the object casting the shadow. And in the case of a negative image, all the information is there. He says "violent images (of God in OT) point to the cross the same way a shadow points to reality", meaning a negative contrast to reality. He goes on to say the "violent" pictures of God in the OT do not show what God is like, but they show what He is not like! On the cross Jesus appeared to be a guilty sinner without being a sinner and likewise everything ugly about God in the OT is allowed so others who actually do the bad deeds impact how God was perceived. God allowed it but never participated.
In his sermon, Boyd is greatly distressed by Jeremiah 13:14 which He descibes as a horrific picture of God smashing babies:
Jeremiah 13:14, New American Standard Bible (NASB)
14. I will dash them against each other, both the fathers and the sons together,” declares the Lord. “I will not show pity nor be sorry nor have compassion so as not to destroy them.
But Boyd gets God off the hook by saying the evil acts were actually done by men which in his view relieves God of any responsibility. This is strange thinking to me; God is concerned with sparrows but a deist when it comes to people.
Boyd never mentions the wars of Joshua:
Joshua 10:7-14, New American Standard Bible (NASB)
7. So Joshua went up from Gilgal, he and all the people of war with him and all the valiant warriors. 8. The Lord said to Joshua, “Do not fear them, for I have given them into your hands; not one of them shall stand before you.” 9. So Joshua came upon them suddenly by marching all night from Gilgal. 10. And the Lord confounded them before Israel, and He slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and pursued them by the way of the ascent of Beth-horon and struck them as far as Azekah and Makkedah. 11. As they fled from before Israel, while they were at the descent of Beth-horon, the Lord threw large stones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and they died; there were more who died from the hailstones than those whom the sons of Israel killed with the sword.
12. Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,
“O sun, stand still at Gibeon,
And O moon in the valley of Aijalon.”
13. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.
Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. 14. There was no day like that before it or after it, when the Lord listened to the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.
God was obviously actively involved here, not to mention the Noahic flood, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. Boyd's theodicy is a failure. If the OT picture of God was inaccurate, rather than, as I think, incomplete, it seems to me Jesus would have said something about it. But He seemed to hold the "Law and Prophets" in high regard.
Re: Theodicy
I think the only way this 'have your cake and eat it too' approach works is when one or both sides are being caricatured. In this case, I feel you are caricaturing Arminians (unless you're only referring to Arminians who don't really understand Arminianism... but why do that?). Arminianism is anything but deistic. I'll assume that you're utilizing the popular level definition of deism: God exists but is un-involved in world affairs. Arminians are synergistic. God is active in the world, but aims at partnership.psimmond wrote:When it comes to God's sovereignty, I think Calvinists are closer to the truth than Arminians. (When it comes to free will, I think Arminians are closer to the truth. ) Arminians sometimes sound a lot like Deists. God is sitting on his throne and every now and then he reaches down and manipulates or tweaks things here on earth.
So Arminianism is nothing like deism. Nor is Calvinism closer to the truth on sovereignty. Calvinists tend to think true sovereignty can only happen through micro-management, but sovereignty never really means that. In the world, if a king is sovereign, it means he sets the rules and the agenda for his nation. It doesn't mean that he tells citizen X what to eat for breakfast or when to go to the bathroom. The more meticulous your doctrine of sovereignty, the more responsible God is for evil
I think prophesy shows that God has ordered this world in such a way that the plan he made before the act of creation is being incrementally fulfilled. The things that we do "of our own volition" are in actuality influenced by numerous factors that God put into place.
You sound almost like a hyper-calvinist here. "Of our own volition" is in quotes, almost as if you don't really believe our volition has much to do with things at all. Instead, our decisions are "actually" influenced (manipulated?) by God's design. It sounds, to me, like you don't believe in libertarian free will (that we have the ability to choose otherwise). Instead, it sounds like you are a compatibilist (that freedom simply means that we actually desire to do the thing we inevitably will do). I think compatibilist is non-sensical (an attempt to eat cake and have it too). When pushed to reason, it is always chalked up to mystery.
I find these statements surprisingly unimaginative. You're telling me an all-wise, creative God.... could not have brought about an event like the Exodus... without manipulating a world in which a bunch of jealous brothers try to kill their sibling? No. A bunch of jealous brothers tried to kill their sibling, and God stepped into a terrible situation and found a way to use it gloriously. Nor did God need to create a world that would host a famine at the exact moment Joseph was elevated to leadership. The famine was the REASON Joseph was elevated to leadership. God used the circumstance of a terrible famine to elevate Joseph by giving him the gift of dream interpretation.Moses couldn't have led the Hebrew people to the promised land if God had not arranged the world in such a way that a young man many years earlier was born into a family with brothers who would grow to despise him and would sell him into slavery. The famine wasn't a random ecological phenomenon. God created the world in such a way that a famine would occur in this part of the world at a precise point in history that coincided with Joseph being elevated to a position of leadership in Egypt.
There are a couple things I could say about this passage that render Calvinistic sovereignty and/or Molinism unnecessary resorts. First, David was primarily speaking about events in his own life. History tends to repeat himself and the situation applied to the 1st century as well. Second, even if you took David's statement wholly as a prophecy, it is rather vague and could have been fulfilled in a myriad of ways. God pre-determined that the world would crucify the Son. This didn't have to be manipulated, nor did a particular world where such a thing happened need to be chosen from among a multitude of possible worlds before creation. Rebels rebel.Judas and Herod and Pilate were all acting "of their own volition," yet Luke writes in Acts:
And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, "'Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed'--for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. Act 4:24-28
Your first question sounds like distancing a good God from atrocity is bad wishful theology. I say its good theology. We know most about God from Jesus. He is the revelation of God. So I think we can strongly suggest that God isn't fond distasteful things. All of these atrocities were indeed pinned to God, almost literally, on the cross. He took the blame, in Jesus... but you're coming pretty close to saying it was his to begin with.Why is it important theologically? Is it important because it enables us to distance God from distasteful events in history? We can say God didn't have anything to do with it; he just withdrew his presence. The truth is everything can ultimately be pinned on God because he created this world with perfect foreknowledge. God created a world in which a man named Cain would murder his brother. God created a world in which a man named Adolf Hitler would become a leader and murder millions. God knew all of these events would take place before he created a single atom! Fully aware of the ramifications, God deemed it good to create this world because he knew that this world would be a good world in which his plan would be accomplished. (Yes, I'm a Molinist.)
God created a good world. Fallen people seek power. God is able to use the sinful ambition of men to bring about necessary consequences on other sinful people. God is also smart enough, and has enough foresight, to see nations emerge and inspire prophecies toward those ends. As for meteorites and angels of death, my position is not that God is not allowed to judge evil peoples directly. My position is that when He does so it is actually loving and wasn't manipulated.God arranged the world in such a way that the Assyrians would take out the northern kingdom and the Babylonians would take out the southern kingdom. God chose to use free-will agents to carry out these judgments, but he could have used an angel of death, meteorites, etc. Theologically, would it have made a difference?
God's omni-presence doesn't mean that God is physically present everywhere, as if God is physical to begin with. It means that no place is beyond his reach. Your observation that God removed His Spirit (spiritual gifts are simply the direct presence of the Spirit in someone's like, eh?) from Saul makes exactly my point. Saul, more and more, insisted on living for self. God, being a gentleman, withdrew from Saul. The consequence of living a life in which God is not welcome is chaos, insanity, hatred, rage, jealousy, etc. These are the forms that life take when God is asked to leave the building. Attributing what's left when God is asked to leave... to God himself... is backwards thinking in my opinion!It can't mean that God's presence was absent since scripture tells us there is no place on this earth where God is not present. We do know that in the Old Testament, God's Spirit would come upon people for a time enabling them to do supernatural feats and then depart; however, the commentaries I've read suggest that God removed the Spiritual gifts he had previously bestowed on Saul: wisdom, prophecy, etc. I think this was probably the case.
Re: Theodicy
As for Boyd... let's wait for the book to be published! It's almost starting to feel like a Rob Bell 'Love Wins' reaction here. A couple of sermons does not a theodicy make. I pointed out the same critique of Boyd's 'negative/shadow' analogy in an earlier thread. Certainly his theodicy will provoke serious questions... but let's let him express himself fully before we call his project a failure. Rob Bell was rejected as a heretic before his book was off the presses. And is rejected still by people who haven't even read it. In reality, is it really anything different from CS Lewis's "The Great Divorce" ? It seems to me the only difference is that CS Lewis is an established favorite amongst Evangelicals and Rob Bell is a youngish contemporary of ours.
Re: Theodicy
Hi mattrose,
When I say that I think Calvinists are closer to the truth than Arminians when it comes to God's sovereignty, I'm not saying that I think Calvinists are right or that I believe we are just pawns being moved about on the board by God.
What I'm saying is that in the 43 years that I've lived, I've interacted in person and on internet forums with many who call themselves Arminians and many who call themselves Calvinists. I've attended churches from many different denominations and discussed the issues of sovereignty and free will with many different people from lay people, to pastors, to Bible scholars, and in my experience those who call themselves Arminians tend to be uncomfortable talking about God's sovereignty. Words like "providence," "predestined," and "ordained" make them squirm. Most will say that God is intimately involved in world affairs but when I ask them to explain, they say things like "the Holy Spirit draws all men" or " God's Spirit works in the lives of believers to transform them" or "God listens to prayer" and those who aren't cessationists will say "sometimes God does miracles."
Of course they are right, but this falls so short of what the Bible actually says!
I've also found that many talk as though God is watching from a distance and when he sees bad things happen to his children, he quickly works to manipulate things so that these bad things will work together for good. Their description makes him out to be quite a reactionary God.
When discussing free will and attempting to answer how we could choose other than what God knew, even before we were born, we would choose, they say things like "God is outside of time" or "God doesn't know exactly what we'll choose but he knows every possible choice we could make."
My discussions have shown me time and time again that so many who call themselves Arminians are actually quite confused (and inconsistent).
Now just so you don't think I've got something against Arminians, I also think that most Calvinists are confused and inconsistent, especially the 5 Pointers.
Now you could argue that I’ve just talked to the wrong people, and if I really want to know what Arminians believe, I should read some books by Roger Olsen or Jacob Arminius himself. And if I want a better perspective on Calvinism I should read James White’s books or the works of John Calvin. Fair enough (Incidentally, I have read stuff from all of these guys), but that’s not my point.
My point is not that Arminianism is similar to Deism. My point is that a lot of people who call themselves Arminians sound a lot like Deists when discussing God’s sovereignty.
I discussed my views on libertarian free will here:
http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... ill#p52912
I think Luke meant exactly what he wrote.
When I say that I think Calvinists are closer to the truth than Arminians when it comes to God's sovereignty, I'm not saying that I think Calvinists are right or that I believe we are just pawns being moved about on the board by God.
What I'm saying is that in the 43 years that I've lived, I've interacted in person and on internet forums with many who call themselves Arminians and many who call themselves Calvinists. I've attended churches from many different denominations and discussed the issues of sovereignty and free will with many different people from lay people, to pastors, to Bible scholars, and in my experience those who call themselves Arminians tend to be uncomfortable talking about God's sovereignty. Words like "providence," "predestined," and "ordained" make them squirm. Most will say that God is intimately involved in world affairs but when I ask them to explain, they say things like "the Holy Spirit draws all men" or " God's Spirit works in the lives of believers to transform them" or "God listens to prayer" and those who aren't cessationists will say "sometimes God does miracles."
Of course they are right, but this falls so short of what the Bible actually says!
I've also found that many talk as though God is watching from a distance and when he sees bad things happen to his children, he quickly works to manipulate things so that these bad things will work together for good. Their description makes him out to be quite a reactionary God.
When discussing free will and attempting to answer how we could choose other than what God knew, even before we were born, we would choose, they say things like "God is outside of time" or "God doesn't know exactly what we'll choose but he knows every possible choice we could make."
My discussions have shown me time and time again that so many who call themselves Arminians are actually quite confused (and inconsistent).

Now just so you don't think I've got something against Arminians, I also think that most Calvinists are confused and inconsistent, especially the 5 Pointers.
Now you could argue that I’ve just talked to the wrong people, and if I really want to know what Arminians believe, I should read some books by Roger Olsen or Jacob Arminius himself. And if I want a better perspective on Calvinism I should read James White’s books or the works of John Calvin. Fair enough (Incidentally, I have read stuff from all of these guys), but that’s not my point.
My point is not that Arminianism is similar to Deism. My point is that a lot of people who call themselves Arminians sound a lot like Deists when discussing God’s sovereignty.
I definitely believe that our decisions are influenced by God’s design. (I call this God’s providence.) I also believe that God’s design was contingent upon God’s knowledge of what free agents would do given all counterfactuals. And no, I don’t believe in libertarian free will as you’ve defined it. I don't see any reasonable way to say that God is omniscient and has perfect foreknowledge while also saying that we can choose other than what God already knew we would choose (unless you define omniscience and foreknowledge like Greg Boyd and other Open Theists do).Mattrose wrote: "Of our own volition" is in quotes, almost as if you don't really believe our volition has much to do with things at all. Instead, our decisions are "actually" influenced (manipulated?) by God's design. It sounds, to me, like you don't believe in libertarian free will (that we have the ability to choose otherwise).
I discussed my views on libertarian free will here:
http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... ill#p52912
What I’m saying is that God saw fit to create this particular world based on his knowledge of what specific people in specific situations would do, so it had to go down the way that God knew that it would when he chose to create this world. We can say the way it transpired was unimaginative and God could have or should have created a world in which things went differently, and maybe he could have but that’s nothing more than the opinions of profoundly fallible creatures.mattrose wrote: “I find these statements surprisingly unimaginative. You're telling me an all-wise, creative God.... could not have brought about an event like the Exodus... without manipulating a world in which a bunch of jealous brothers try to kill their sibling? No.”
Sure they do, but that’s not what Luke wrote. He specifically said, “…truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.mattrose said: “Rebels rebel.”
I think Luke meant exactly what he wrote.
What does this mean? Are you saying that God cannot be physically present anywhere since he doesn’t have a physical body? Or are you saying that God is spiritually present but not physically present? If so, what does spiritual presence entail?mattrose wrote: “God's omni-presence doesn't mean that God is physically present everywhere, as if God is physical to begin with.”
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen
~Garry Friesen
Re: Theodicy
Something I posted over three years ago that is pertinent to this discussion, perhaps a middle ground:
Perhaps one of our difficulties is in seeing how God might decide to allow (or cause) a terrible thing to happen to a person or group of persons for the benefit of another person or group, even mankind in general. Considering God's destruction of Sodom it is very difficult to see that as a loving act toward the inhabitants of Sodom, but not difficult to see it as a loving action toward mankind in general.John Mark Hicks has written an excellent book, "Yet Will I Trust Him; Understanding God in a Fallen World". Hicks faith was shaken at the sudden death of his first wife in her youth. They had dedicated themselves to be missionaries and were preparing to go to Eastern Europe. They had prayed ardently for health and protection. How could God have ignored their faithfulness? And then Hicks married again. A son was born and was named Joshua. Joshua soon was discovered to have a genetic disease that took his young life as a teen. Joshua suffered much through his short life.
Yet Hick's study of the scriptures led him to write concerning Job:
"Divine permission, then, means that God permits events which He neither determines nor plans. God may not have planned the death of my first wife, but He permitted it. He made a decision in response to my prayer for her health. He at least decided to permit her death. God may not have planned Joshua's genetic condition, but He permitted it. God made a decision in response to our prayers for Joshua's health. He at least decided to permit his genetic condition. If God is sovereign in such a way that He could act at any moment to change my personal history, then God at every moment decides whether to act or not. He decides whether to prevent any given event. Therefore, when God permits something, it expresses His decision in that circumstance, and His decision, I am confident, is not arbitrary. His decision to permit arises out of some purpose or intent that He has in that circumstance. While Satan may intend a particular circumstance for evil, God intends it for good. While Satan sought to destroy Job's faith, God intended to refine it.
By way of permission, then, God is accomplishing His purposes in the world. God permitted Satan to test Job because he had decided to test Job. He had His own purposes for doing so. With divine permission Satan used both human agents and natural forces to test him. God, then, carries out His permissive will through Satanic, human, and natural agents."
Re: Theodicy
No doubt. Of course, I can't answer for such people.psimmond wrote: My point is not that Arminianism is similar to Deism. My point is that a lot of people who call themselves Arminians sound a lot like Deists when discussing God’s sovereignty.
Well, I consider compatibilism faulty philosophy, am very open to Open Theism, and don't think Molinism solves anything or rings true... so it is no surprise that we aren't seeing eye to eye on these matters! But that's OK. I appreciate your defense of your position.I also believe that God’s design was contingent upon God’s knowledge of what free agents would do given all counterfactuals. And no, I don’t believe in libertarian free will as you’ve defined it. I don't see any reasonable way to say that God is omniscient and has perfect foreknowledge while also saying that we can choose other than what God already knew we would choose (unless you define omniscience and foreknowledge like Greg Boyd and other Open Theists do).
First of all, even if we agreed that God specifically manipulated Pilate and Herod to do what they did, that wouldn't establish that that was God's normal way of working. The cross was/is the most important event in history and may have called for an especially meticulous application of sovereignty.but that’s not what Luke wrote. He specifically said, “…truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. I think Luke meant exactly what he wrote.
But what Luke says and what you are saying he says don't necessarily match up. It could just as easily be interpreted that God had predestined the EVENT (crucifixion at the hands of the nations) to take place without meticulously controlling what specific players would be involved. "They did" (which implies volition). They ended up doing, of their own free will, what God had determined would be done.
As confused as you sound about my statements, I am confused about the reverse? What would you even mean by God being physically present anywhere (other than in Jesus?)? I am saying that the doctrine of omni-presence has to do with the fact that no place in the physical realm is outside of God's sovereignty. I am under the impression that that is the classic definition of omni-presence.What does this mean? Are you saying that God cannot be physically present anywhere since he doesn’t have a physical body? Or are you saying that God is spiritually present but not physically present? If so, what does spiritual presence entail?