Happy Valentine Day's To & Yours!
Posted on 02/14/2003 11:49:21 AM PST by restornu
My pup (dog) looked a lot like that beagle. Lots of Beagle in him, but Heinz was there too! Let me see if I can post the valentine card I made for my sweetie.......
Section 1 above (God's perfection): The reviewer's basic issue seems to be with God and His relationship to creation. The implications made by the reviewer regarding the classical God are that He a)created the universe for the express purpose of His 'happiness' and b)the pursuit of any sort of return on investment in the course of creation denotes imperfection.
First, the chief end of man is to glorify God (basic catechism stuff), NOT to make Him happy. Everything about creation glorifies the Lord, whether by reflection or contrast. The language and arguments the reviewer puts forth lead me to believe that he sees the classical view as one in which God is dependent somehow on man's acceptance or rejection, and that He had no (or at least limited) sovereignty over how time plays out. I am not thoroughly enough educated yet to speak authoritatively on the whole of 'classical Christian theology' but I do know that Reformed theology does not hold such a view.
Second, if God is glorified above all existent things, and then brings something new into existence (such as our universe) that He might be fully glorified in it as well, does that mean He was not fully glorified in the absence of that creation? Hypothetically speaking (stay with me here), if I have in each of my two hands a glass of water big enough that I cannot manage to carry anything else, and then suddenly I grow a third arm and pick up another glass (at which point again I am unable to carry anything else), was I incorrect in stating that I could not carry anything else when I only had two arms?
Section 2 (God's omnipotence): The reviewer is grossly mischaracterizing and misunderstanding the omnipotent nature of the classical God. The second paragraph of the section poses in interesting argument. He states that one of the guidelines of the power of the classical God is that He will always wield that power in a logically consistent manner. The reviewer then tries to paint this notion of omnipotence as 'inadequate' by arguing that God cannot by His power bring about the author's free acts. One of the most basic rules of logic is the law of non-contradiction (put simply, a particular thing by definition cannot be what it is not). The fact that God cannot by His power (force) bring about an act that is free (and thus by definition NOT forced) actually is an argument FOR the characteristic of classical omnipotence that he is trying to argue against!
The reviewer's discussion of 'middle knowledge' is again riddled with misunderstanding and bound by a preconceived notion. The concept of middle knowledge, as stated in the article, entails the knowledge both of what actually happens and what could conceivably happen given any array of different circumstances. The reviewer places severe constraints however on how this is viewed, operating from the Mormon preconception that God exists within the universe exclusively and is thus bound by space, time and causal factors over which He has no control. The classical view has God existing outside of the time and space constraints of the universe, and thus He is not bound or limited by the factors which the reviewer puts forth. Consider this quote:
Since every free act open to humans entails a contingent state of affairs which God cannot bring about, it follows that God is rather severely limited by mere possibilities.This ignores the fact that a)human decisions are not made in a vacuum and that 'free' does not mean random, b)God has the ability to manipulate circumstances (an almost universally agreed upon point...otherwise most of our praying is pretty much pointless), c)God knows the hearts and minds of men exhaustively, and d)that given these God could indirectly manipulate any decision. This does not even touch upon the notion of the bondage of the will or the effects of 'prevenient grace' on individuals, or of the classical notions of predestination and foreknowledge.
Another quote to consider is the following:
For example, it seems clear that God cannot now bring it about that Lincoln is not shot in 1865, though no doubt at one time God could have prevented it from occurring. Thus what has been actual limits God's power.
This goes directly back to the prior classifications the reviewer attributed to the author in terms of the guidelines of classical omnipotence, in this case namely that it is consistent with God's basic attributes. If you accept that the classical God's existence is not bound by the universe and that He is sovereign over the workings of it from start to finish, it would follow that Lincoln was shot because God had foreordained that event as any other. As such, the notion of God bringing it about so that it had not occurred would involve a)God essentially changing His mind (certainly not 'perfect' nor consistent with His character), and b)our ability to perceive that change given our existence within linear time. I'm reminded of the great Quantum Leap episode where Scott Bakula 'leaped' into Lee Harvey Oswald and despite all his efforts to the contrary he could not keep from shooting JFK. It was only after the assassination that Al and Ziggy let him know that he accomplished what he was supposed to and that 'in the original history' Jackie was killed too.
Ok...I'm gonna have to continue this later. I still have to pick a worship song for tomorrow's service and make sure I'll remember the words.
To be continued...
Section 4 (God's Foreknowledge): This incredibly verbose section is funny in that it repeatedly uses faulty logic to argue against what it terms faulty logic. When all is said and done, the reviewer puts forth a case for open theism, and attempts to add credibility to it by citing other Christian authors and theologians who have professed similar beliefs. Open theism is so extremely unbiblical and illogical that I can't believe it gains as much traction as it does these days. It is an extremely anthropocentric system that so exalts and expands the definition and concept of free agency that it stands completely ignorant of matters of space and time. The notion that foreknowledge of an event means that it's not a free choice is completely rediculous. By definition, foreknowledge means knowing beforehand. The idea is that God knows something will happen before it happens. For example, God foreknew that John Wilkes Booth would shoot and kill President Abraham Lincoln at Ford Theater. Open theists would argue that if God really foreknew it then it is impossible for Booth not to have done it and therefore it wasn't a free act. Of course, if Booth did not shoot him, God would have foreknown that Booth was not going to shoot him. Oh, but then because God foreknew that, Booth couldn't shoot Lincoln even if he wanted to, and that's just not right. That tramples on Booth's freedom. PLEASE! For the purposes of this argument, foreknowledge does NOT mean predestination or predetermination. The reviewer clearly cannot distinguish between the two concepts. Of course, despite the stated position that God cannot foreknow the acts of men because it would eliminate the possibility of something else occuring, the reviewer still assures us that God DOES foreknow His ultimate victory over Satan and sin (ostensibly because what kind of picture would the reviewer paint if he said that the ultimate outcome of redemptive history was uncertain). The reviewer is guilty of doing exactly what he chides the original author for doing.
Now we move on to prophecy. How can God foretell events and conditions without foreknowledge? According to the reviewer, he's a good gambler who knows the odds. He attempts to lump all Biblical prophecy into four categories: Sovereign acts (where men have no input), conditional prophecies (I'll do this unless you give me a reason not to), Inevitable consequences (the kinetic energy argument...it was gonna happen anyway), and Elective prophecy (the old bait and switch...this instance means Israel, this one doesn't...). Ok, let's put one to the test.
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." - Matthew 26:34Can we apply category one? Not unless God made Peter deny Christ. Category two? "You will deny me three times...unless Judas changes his mind and doesn't betray me. I have no way of knowing, but put me down for $20." Category three? Given all the circumstances, Peter was bound to eventually deny Christ three times in a row, the last being right before the rooster crowed. That is of course unless the owner of the rooster changed his mind an decided he was hungry enough to kill and cook the sucker. Category four? Well, I really don't think Jesus was actually addressing all Israel as an aside.
Unless the reviewer wants to make up another category, I'd say we have a prophecy from the lips of the Savior Himself which shows acute foreknowledge. Incidently, the reviewer then presents an argument for the limited foreknowledge of Christ by displaying his ignorance in the field of eschatology, and then continues his argument for the limited knowledge of God by citing several scriptures and insisting that his open view is the only possible explanation (based on the presupposition that his position is correct). Lousy exegis abounds.
Section 4 hopefully tomorrow....
You correctly pointed out that the notion that foreknowledge of an event means that it's not a free choice is completely rediculous. By definition, foreknowledge means knowing beforehand.
To deny God's perfect foreknowledge is ultimately to deny that God is in perfect control of all things--when the Bible emphatically screams out that He is in perfect control of all things. The philosophizers who reject this Biblical truth in the name of their confused logic are fools. They have gone beyond the matter of mere intellectual difficulty to a flagrant anti-God position.
In other words, the denial that God is in perfect, predestinarian control of all things (e.g., see Acts 13:48) is a token of the very forces of reprobation which God most certainly does control (see Psalm 2:4).
I'm waiting patiently...
I do have other things to do, think what you like!
If you want to simply keep posting articles and cute little pictures without spending time in meaningful discussion, that's fine.
Please also note that post #33 was not directed only to you. On another thread, your buddy Illbay issued a blanket criticism to all us heretics because we didn't respond immediately to the article he posted, which obviously must have been because we're "nitwits." (remember...the "talking out our asses" controversy).
The post was just as much directed at him. He has not responded to my posts regarding this article. If he doesn't want to reponsd, that's fine...but he's a hypocrite if he continues to use our silence as an argument against us.
Why am I obligated to do this?
And how does man glorify God? Latter-Day Saint doctrine teaches that we glorify Him by perfecting ourselves and becoming like Him. For that is His plan:
27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the spirit of God.God's existence is DEFINED by His Creative power. It is His "work" and His "glory" to compass our eternal life. He exists in other words, to bring about our happiness. He is the ultimate reason for happiness.28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.
29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.
30 And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them?
31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.
32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.
33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.
36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.
37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.
38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.
39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
--(Pearl of Great Price) Moses 1:27-39
Again, the LDS view of our relationship to God is as children to Father, whereas the appearance to me is that Christian sects see the relationship more as "pet" to "owner."
We are NOT pets; we are the very, literal spiritual offspring of Deity, and therein lies the secret of our ultimate destiny.
Second, if God is glorified above all existent things, and then brings something new into existence (such as our universe) that He might be fully glorified in it as well, does that mean He was not fully glorified in the absence of that creation? Hypothetically speaking (stay with me here), if I have in each of my two hands a glass of water big enough that I cannot manage to carry anything else, and then suddenly I grow a third arm and pick up another glass (at which point again I am unable to carry anything else), was I incorrect in stating that I could not carry anything else when I only had two arms?
The problem with this view is that it is finite. It shows a lack of understanding of infinite, eternal things (and I'm not mocking you; I really have no more concept of "eternity" than YOU do. It's just that I KNOW that I don't understand where as you're trying to encompass understanding by defining the infinite using finite concepts).
Joseph Smith taught "What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out his Kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself" (TPJS p. 348).
What does it mean to become "more exalted"? To understand this at least in proximate terms one has to understand the "infinite" aspect of "infinity." "Worlds without end." "Eternal exaltation." There is never a state where progression stops. But time is not apparently part of it, or at least not time as we know it.
Referring to God: He exists in other words, to bring about our happiness. He is the ultimate reason for happiness.
Humanism. Plain and simple.
Of course if we "other sects" respond to this, we'll be considered bashing
respectfully, do you understand the paradox we are encountering
We've lost moderated free discourse
Why not let us police our own - perhaps a mutually respected freeper can moderate, freeing you from the the whackamole abuse button problem
When someone makes a stupid comment like "Christian sects see the relationship more as "pet" to "owner." don't get upset with them. They are lost. Something that stupid needs no direct response. Just refute it in a post to another freeper.
Let them bash you and me all they want. Don't respond in kind and don't respond directly to them. Just respond with the truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.