Perhaps, illustrations when dealing with these type of issues all have their limitations, clearly the illustration breaks down when you recognize that we are discussing the Creator/creature relationship, but I don’t understand the distinction you are drawing between “govern” and control, it would seem they are synonymous terms as it relates to this discussion. The parent installs “controls” by spelling out rules and instructing the child what is and is not permissible. The illustration breaks down as you point out because unlike children who grow into adult-hood man will never escape his creature status and become God. Nevertheless, I do believe the illustration has merit in that parents do control or govern their children by establishing limits all the while maintaining a relationship.Troy C wrote:Paul,
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. This is not some sort of a bifurcation. Parent's govern all things for their children, not control. In fact, it is the parents desire for their children to grow and mature and get to the place where they do not need to govern all things. If parents meticulously controlled all things for their children from birth to adulthood, then there would not be much of a relationship, at least not a reciprocal give-and-take one. If a father made all of the choices for the children, what kind of a relationship would that be?
Your representation left out the fundamental issue with what would appear to be Pinnock’s error. “Independent status” places man on an equal footing separate and apart from God. I haven’t studied Pinnock but this sounds like open theism, which would suggest God is at the mercy of those beings who have “independent status”. Your error was in representing the view as “relationship” focused rather than in pointing out the view entails the elevation of man to an “independent status. Man will never escape his status as creature. BTW, you comment, “it seems to me that no one really understands things like you do.”, wouldn’t seem to be justified in that the issues I’ve brought to light regarding Homer’s straw man, and Gregg’s representation of Calvin’s view were backed up by confessions and the writings of Calvin. Do you have a for instance, where what I've represented is out there?Troy C wrote:Paul,
Moving on, it seems to me that no one really understands things like you do. You have constantly played the "you don't understand" card among other cards like this. In this case, you accuse me of presenting the 2nd view inaccurately. So, I direct you to Pinnock:
By willing the existence of significant beings with independent status alongside of himself, God accepts limitations not imposed from without. In other words, in ruling over the world God is not all-determining but may will to achieve his goals through other agents, accepting the limitations of this decision. Yet this does not make God 'weak,' for it requires more power to rule over an undetermined world than it would over a determined one. Creating free creatures and working with them does not contradict God's omnipotence but requires it. Only omnipotence has the requisite degree and quality of power to undertake such a project" (Clark Pinnock, "Systematic Theology," in Pinnock et. al. (Eds.), The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1994, p. 113).
As I understand it man, while created in the image of God was and is still a finite creature, as such man’s knowledge was dependent upon the Creator. Man was not created as an autonomous being, he was still subservient to the Laws of God the Creator, therefore he was not an “independent” being alongside God. It seems to me that when you posit man as and “independent” being you are certainly impugning the aseity of God. You presuppose God’s creatures post fall have the same capacity to make a choice as Adam pre-fall had. Help me understand, how can fallen man, man whom Scripture tells us are at enmity with God make a choice for God? While you may dress up the language using terms like “relationship” you are, (by this I mean the view you presented) is attempting to create man as an “independent being”, on equal footing with God a concept which even in Adam’s unfallen state isn’t supported by the Biblical record as far as I can tell.Troy C wrote: In light of this, please tell me what I have presented that is not accurate?
You said that the later 2 views elevate man’s status at one point or other to be on equal footing with the Creator. Well, when God made man in His image and after His likeness, human freedom, which is a form of delegated sovereignty, was part of this package. So, when God's creatures make a choice of obedient self sacrifice and humilty this reflects glory back upon God from whence this freedom came from. This essentially gives more glory unto God than the view that God ordained this obedience, because this obedience could not have failed to arise, whereas the obedience that arose from creatures that could have disobeyed, yet lovingly submitted to their Creator. This is what Non-Calvinists are trying to point out. We are not trying to idolize our will and worship humanism. No, instead, we are acknowledging God's design, security, and love in giving us this type of freedom, which is necessary to bring relationships to it's full potential. It is Calvinism that limits God's relationality.
PaulT