ARCHIVE: Romans 8 and the Open View
- Thread starter Jaltus
- Start date
Y
Yxboom
Guest
To which I must agree.
Arminian and 1013,
Not ready to handle the "corporate election" stuff yet, give me some time to read and think (I have never really thought about this before). I am uncertain as to where I stand.
1013,
The modified Molinist position is basically the "Grandmaster Chess player" defense of the OV. God is the "omnicompentent responder" (taken from an essay by Sanders in the ETS book "Looking into the Future" edited by David Baker), knowing how to best respond to any situation. The problem is, however, that even the most competent person can get backed into a wall from time to time as bad things continually mount up. The question is, what does God do then?
ASIDE, but relevant to Romans 8
Here is a real humdinger of a question: If all things work together for the good of those who love Him and have been called according to His purpose, then how can anyone lose salvation? Up until they lose salvation, God has to be working in their best interests. Wouldn't losing salvation be against their best interest? This seems a valid question for both Arminians and OVers. I need to think about this one a bit.
END ASIDE
Oh, I am going out of town tomorrow (yet another wedding) and will get back on Saturday or Sunday. I am not sure when I will post after that (maybe Monday or Tuesday). I have a busy summer, hehe.
Not ready to handle the "corporate election" stuff yet, give me some time to read and think (I have never really thought about this before). I am uncertain as to where I stand.
1013,
That is only if you assume the modified Molinist position, which only Boyd holds to (none of the other major OV proponents do, and David Basinger even attacks Molinism). Should we go down the Molinist road, or stick to general OV?
The modified Molinist position is basically the "Grandmaster Chess player" defense of the OV. God is the "omnicompentent responder" (taken from an essay by Sanders in the ETS book "Looking into the Future" edited by David Baker), knowing how to best respond to any situation. The problem is, however, that even the most competent person can get backed into a wall from time to time as bad things continually mount up. The question is, what does God do then?
Of course, even we are surprised at horrendous sin, and I would guess that mankind is much more cynical than God. Hmm, can God be cynical? Nevermind.
This seems to contradict most OVers, in that they affirm that God can actually be wrong. The verse you mention is one of the instances when God was wrong, according to (at least) Sanders. Can God be wrong (e.g. hold a false belief) or not?
ASIDE, but relevant to Romans 8
Here is a real humdinger of a question: If all things work together for the good of those who love Him and have been called according to His purpose, then how can anyone lose salvation? Up until they lose salvation, God has to be working in their best interests. Wouldn't losing salvation be against their best interest? This seems a valid question for both Arminians and OVers. I need to think about this one a bit.
END ASIDE
Oh, I am going out of town tomorrow (yet another wedding) and will get back on Saturday or Sunday. I am not sure when I will post after that (maybe Monday or Tuesday). I have a busy summer, hehe.
Arminian
New member
I guess it would be a problem for me if it said "those who WILL [in the future] love him" or "those who HAVE [once] loved him." But it only mentions those who already DO love him. I DO believe that "all things" (meaning suffering, too) work for the good of those who DO love him. That's why we should embrace "suffering."
Arminian
New member
Jaltus,
It's a promise to those who love him.....to those who "wait."
That goes back to my first post on this issue. Paul's audience is suffering. How can this be if they are God's people? The answer is that if they suffer they will be glorified, so this is how suffering works to their good.
The point is that the verse isn't meant to give meaning to everything that happens or explain why ANYTHING happens. The verse doesn't explain why the pastor's pants split while he was on stage, or why little Joey forgot his line in the school play. The verse explains that suffering works to our good because if we suffer we will be "glorified with Christ," who has made us "more than conquerors." In the meantime, we "groan inwardly" and the "Spirit help us in our weakness" as we "suffer."
In other words, Paul is making pastoral comments, not philosophical ones. "For in this hope we are saved....But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently."
We already know that good things work together for our good, but what about suffering? Paul aswers that question -- it leads to glorification, and that's GOOD! Therefore, all things work together for our good.
What about those who no longer love him? They are not glorified with Christ Jesus. And that ain't good.....
It's a promise to those who love him.....to those who "wait."
That goes back to my first post on this issue. Paul's audience is suffering. How can this be if they are God's people? The answer is that if they suffer they will be glorified, so this is how suffering works to their good.
The point is that the verse isn't meant to give meaning to everything that happens or explain why ANYTHING happens. The verse doesn't explain why the pastor's pants split while he was on stage, or why little Joey forgot his line in the school play. The verse explains that suffering works to our good because if we suffer we will be "glorified with Christ," who has made us "more than conquerors." In the meantime, we "groan inwardly" and the "Spirit help us in our weakness" as we "suffer."
In other words, Paul is making pastoral comments, not philosophical ones. "For in this hope we are saved....But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently."
We already know that good things work together for our good, but what about suffering? Paul aswers that question -- it leads to glorification, and that's GOOD! Therefore, all things work together for our good.
What about those who no longer love him? They are not glorified with Christ Jesus. And that ain't good.....
Last edited:
1013
Post Modern Fundamentalist
sure why not. However I'm not so sure that the other Open Theists are so opposed to Boyd's picture as they are to the terminology. You just cited Sanders with a sufficiently similar view.
Also, was the concept that Basinger was attacking still an issue in Boyd's picture. Open theists are opposed to molinism first and formost on the grounds that it still appears to programed to the point that it is questionable if it can retain the concept of libertarian free will. that is not the case in boyd's modification as the future remains open from the present because of Libertarian freedom.
thus showing the limits of this analogy. but to make it closer to the fact, God knows every move of every possible game. God will play the Game to for the best chance of success but if there is a chance that he could get backed into a wall like you say, if it might turn into one of those situations, he makes the rules and he can bend them. He'd done such. obvious examples are miracles.
yes of course. sometimes he's a real wise guy. but that point even came as a surprise to me and that an already througly indoctinated open view groupie. I can not think of a single time where God is surprised that he was obeyed. evidently it's because he expects his efforts to pay off. Of course perhaps one could argue that just as the situations of surprise to God are situations of disapointment, perhaps some situations of the opposite of disappointment, where God is delighted are also occasionally instances of surprise. but I'm not going to stick by that.
where'd Sanders say that? but it isn't like this is an inappropriate way to put it. you could say that God was wrong. but in what way was he wrong? It was in that he hoped and expected for one outcome and expected that the worse outcome would not happen and all this while knowing that the worse outcomes could still come true.
I disagree that these could be called false beliefs. they were hopes based upon truth. in order for them to be false, there had to be a fact of the matter that the israelites would rebel in the way stated in the verse. Until they rebelled, there was no such fact of the matter and I am very hard pressed to call these false beliefs.
As for what Arminian has said, I think that in itself may be enough to answer your objection. but it's always good to have all bases covered.
Y
Yxboom
Guest
Jeremiah 19:5 and have built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons in the fire for burnt offerings to Baal; which I didn't command, nor spoke it, neither came it into my mind:
Jeremiah 32:35 They built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech; which I didn't command them, neither did it come into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Jeremiah 32:35 They built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech; which I didn't command them, neither did it come into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Yxboom,
In both of those verses, the "it" referred to is God's command.
"...neither did (commanding it) come into my mind..."
1013,
He said it at the ETS conference in his plenary address. I'll see if I can find it documented (I just got his book on Wednesday, but have only read the intro) in either his book or an article.
I am not sure how other OVers see Boyd's modified Molinist position. The rest of them seem more radical than he is. After all, he is just one word away from being an Arminian (if he changed "might" to "would").
I think my biggest problem with the OV is that it unnecessarily limits God. I need to think about that some more.
Arminian,
Are you arguing that in Romans 8:28, "all things" refers only to suffering?!? Please show how one can, from the context, arrive at such a conclusion. I really do not think it is warranted.
In both of those verses, the "it" referred to is God's command.
"...neither did (commanding it) come into my mind..."
1013,
He said it at the ETS conference in his plenary address. I'll see if I can find it documented (I just got his book on Wednesday, but have only read the intro) in either his book or an article.
I am not sure how other OVers see Boyd's modified Molinist position. The rest of them seem more radical than he is. After all, he is just one word away from being an Arminian (if he changed "might" to "would").
Hmm, note the from the present. I would argue that Arminianism in general would argue that the future is open with respect to the present, we just think that God already knows what future free actions we will take, but we do not place God into our time by necessity.
I think my biggest problem with the OV is that it unnecessarily limits God. I need to think about that some more.
Arminian,
Are you arguing that in Romans 8:28, "all things" refers only to suffering?!? Please show how one can, from the context, arrive at such a conclusion. I really do not think it is warranted.
Y
Yxboom
Guest
Jaltus,
Jaltus,
Jaltus,
Exactly. What did you think I thought "it" meant?
1013
Post Modern Fundamentalist
well, open in an epistemic sense for creatures. Not in a metaphysical sense for all who grasp reality as it truly is.
no matter how God creates the world, he will logically be limited according to the fact of the matter of how that world is. For example, If He created a world in which all creatures did precisely as he dictated, His soverignty would not be limited as it is in arminianism, but he could not have creatures choose him of their own volition without him giving up that soverignty.
Y
Yxboom
Guest
In all sincerity as 1013 stated no matter how God created He would be limited. The purpose of the OV is to understand through Biblical evidence why God has created thus and limiting Himself the way He has. We would agree that God can not lie therefore He is limited in that respect but we search Scripture to better understand why He can not. God is not imperfect by this inabliy or limitation just as the OV contends that God is not any less perfect in His inability to exhaustively foreknow the future. When we understand the purpose to why He would limit Himself in this manner, understand why the limitation exists. It is not one of weakness or impotence or even ignorance. Just as 1013 said
It is the utmost of importance to realize the OV states this limitation upon God's foreknowledge rests on man's liberty and freely reciprocating love. It matters more to God to recieve genuine love than to have complete control. Maybe this offers some insight. Peace.
Arminian
New member
Hi Jaltus,
Yes, in that Paul seeks to anwer how suffering can be good.
Really? What are the verses just before and after the verse about (starting at verse 17)? Are they philosophical reflections on metaphysics, or are they about suffering and glorification? Then, if you say that the verses are about suffering and glorification, do they say God CAUSES the suffering, or that the Spirit ASSISTS us as we suffer? How do these things work for our good?
If you say that the Spirit assists us as we suffer, then you understand how all things work to the good of those who "love him, who "wait," and who "suffer so that we might be glorified with Christ." They are all the same. Suffering leads to glorification.
I included quotes from the surrounding text in my last post. Let me know if I need to explain myself.
Later,
Yes, in that Paul seeks to anwer how suffering can be good.
Really? What are the verses just before and after the verse about (starting at verse 17)? Are they philosophical reflections on metaphysics, or are they about suffering and glorification? Then, if you say that the verses are about suffering and glorification, do they say God CAUSES the suffering, or that the Spirit ASSISTS us as we suffer? How do these things work for our good?
If you say that the Spirit assists us as we suffer, then you understand how all things work to the good of those who "love him, who "wait," and who "suffer so that we might be glorified with Christ." They are all the same. Suffering leads to glorification.
I included quotes from the surrounding text in my last post. Let me know if I need to explain myself.
Later,
Last edited:
Arminian,
My problem is the contradiction it leads to in 8:32, for if "all things" is limited to suffering, then God will graciously give us suffering, which seems nonsensical in context.
Yxboom,
If it is that God's command did not come into His mind, then those verses in no way support the OV over against any other viewpoint.
1013,
Yxboom and 1013,
We all know that God is in some sense limited, at the very least by His own nature. However, I think the OV unnecessarily limits God in that it takes away His foreknowledge. No other (orthodox) system tries to trncate God in such a way, and thus I call it unnecessary limitation. Again, your reasons for doing so stem from the belief that EDF and libertarian free-will are incompatible, which is not true.
My problem is the contradiction it leads to in 8:32, for if "all things" is limited to suffering, then God will graciously give us suffering, which seems nonsensical in context.
Yxboom,
If it is that God's command did not come into His mind, then those verses in no way support the OV over against any other viewpoint.
1013,
Unwarranted assumption. You are assuming that God's reality is the only reality. I do not think that is a valid understanding. Our reality is not God's, since we could never understand His reality. Therefore, ours is just as real, though more limited. you must therefore show either that our reality should be the same as God's or that our reality includes His knowledge of the future. If you cannot cover either of those, your point is moot.
Yxboom and 1013,
We all know that God is in some sense limited, at the very least by His own nature. However, I think the OV unnecessarily limits God in that it takes away His foreknowledge. No other (orthodox) system tries to trncate God in such a way, and thus I call it unnecessary limitation. Again, your reasons for doing so stem from the belief that EDF and libertarian free-will are incompatible, which is not true.
1013
Post Modern Fundamentalist
I can't argue with that Jaltus. Seriously, it makes no sense to me to speak of multiple realities. Something is either real or it isn't. We can have different perspectives on reality but it's all of the same animal. God has a total perspective on it. We have a limited one.
Perhaps I can use reality in a subjective sense but I am commited to this objective view as well.
I geuss as close as I come to making an arguement is that I don't think it makes any sense for us to speak of different facts of the matter about eternal destinies. Either the fact of the matter is heaven, or it is hell or the fact of the matter is that both heaven and hell are possible until our relationship is sufficient to exclude the possibility for one for the certainty of going to the other. But we can't have one reality where the fact of the matter for one is certainly destined for hell and another realty where that same exact person in that same exact dimension of that same exact universe has a possibility for salvation. I can't imagine how anything like that can be coherent.
it doesn't take away his foreknowledge. It says that the thing he created can change such that changes in knowledge must accompany that change if that knowledge is to remain truthful.
And if you want to tie a frozen view of foreknowledge so closely to the attributes of God, you would sacrifice His freedom. To what extent you want to still insist that God is free, you still cannot have that extent to the same degree that we in openness hold it. And freedom in God is more important to power and Love than is foreknowledge.
at one time, no system tried to limit God to power only to do what is logical, but then acquinac made his radical proposal.
Open theists seek very much to be faithful to the tradition but in that we would site that the tradition is not always faithful to the tradition. For example, before a few hundred years ago, the church pretty much universally held that infants who weren't baptized would go to hell.
At most we only chuck this view of foreknowledge. but even here we still find agreement in the tradition because our view of foreknowledge is the same as everyone's view of foreknowledge as we affirm with everyone else that God knows as much as possible as soon as possible. We agree furthermore more closely with the calvinists that God foreknows what is determined. We agree with molinists that God knows all possibilities. Ironically, it is the traditional arminians that we have the least agreement concerning foreknowledge.
also, though our view of foreknowledge has never been a significant issue in the church, it has been held by a little known Christian Scholar as early as the fourth century who was an expert on Plato by the name of Calcidius. He wasn't quite a church father but at least he wasn't declared a heretic.
very debatable. I know you and other arminians view the nature of time as an answer but interestingly, some people that I was discussing this issue of the rejection of timelessness automatically piped up and said something like "well that would allow for free will"
I just realized recently that not only does your view of time make the future open, it also suggests an open past, and that for me is a bit too radical.
Perhaps I can use reality in a subjective sense but I am commited to this objective view as well.
I geuss as close as I come to making an arguement is that I don't think it makes any sense for us to speak of different facts of the matter about eternal destinies. Either the fact of the matter is heaven, or it is hell or the fact of the matter is that both heaven and hell are possible until our relationship is sufficient to exclude the possibility for one for the certainty of going to the other. But we can't have one reality where the fact of the matter for one is certainly destined for hell and another realty where that same exact person in that same exact dimension of that same exact universe has a possibility for salvation. I can't imagine how anything like that can be coherent.
it doesn't take away his foreknowledge. It says that the thing he created can change such that changes in knowledge must accompany that change if that knowledge is to remain truthful.
And if you want to tie a frozen view of foreknowledge so closely to the attributes of God, you would sacrifice His freedom. To what extent you want to still insist that God is free, you still cannot have that extent to the same degree that we in openness hold it. And freedom in God is more important to power and Love than is foreknowledge.
at one time, no system tried to limit God to power only to do what is logical, but then acquinac made his radical proposal.
Open theists seek very much to be faithful to the tradition but in that we would site that the tradition is not always faithful to the tradition. For example, before a few hundred years ago, the church pretty much universally held that infants who weren't baptized would go to hell.
At most we only chuck this view of foreknowledge. but even here we still find agreement in the tradition because our view of foreknowledge is the same as everyone's view of foreknowledge as we affirm with everyone else that God knows as much as possible as soon as possible. We agree furthermore more closely with the calvinists that God foreknows what is determined. We agree with molinists that God knows all possibilities. Ironically, it is the traditional arminians that we have the least agreement concerning foreknowledge.
also, though our view of foreknowledge has never been a significant issue in the church, it has been held by a little known Christian Scholar as early as the fourth century who was an expert on Plato by the name of Calcidius. He wasn't quite a church father but at least he wasn't declared a heretic.
very debatable. I know you and other arminians view the nature of time as an answer but interestingly, some people that I was discussing this issue of the rejection of timelessness automatically piped up and said something like "well that would allow for free will"
I just realized recently that not only does your view of time make the future open, it also suggests an open past, and that for me is a bit too radical.
Last edited:
Y
Yxboom
Guest
Could you shed some more light for me about this?
Arminian
New member
Hi Jaltus,
I see what you're saying. But the reference in 32 appears to be to the future. "All things" there appears to be a reference to all the good things involved in salvation.
I'm not the most articulate person, so I looked at a few commentaries to see if there is a better way I could word things. Most of the commentaries I looked at came to the same exegetical conclusion as I, but many injected their inferences and then went in a different direction. I see Moo (since you mentioned him...) doing what I've described: exegesis --> inference --> conclusion. I'll stick with Paul's exegesis (and Moo's) and leave Moo's inference for anyone who wants to participate in creative writing.
Paul has said that God subjected creation to futility (or however you like to translate it) and that this works together for our (the lovers of God) good because of our groaning and/to the Spirit. The emphasis here is not on the details -- or meaning of details --of a person's life. The emphasis is on the type life itself.
I'll post more later, with a few examples of what the commentaries say. A few examples from the commentaries of good exegesis and pitfalls of inference and false choices should be helpful.
Again, make me explain if I'm not clear. I appreciate your help.
Later,
I see what you're saying. But the reference in 32 appears to be to the future. "All things" there appears to be a reference to all the good things involved in salvation.
I'm not the most articulate person, so I looked at a few commentaries to see if there is a better way I could word things. Most of the commentaries I looked at came to the same exegetical conclusion as I, but many injected their inferences and then went in a different direction. I see Moo (since you mentioned him...) doing what I've described: exegesis --> inference --> conclusion. I'll stick with Paul's exegesis (and Moo's) and leave Moo's inference for anyone who wants to participate in creative writing.
Paul has said that God subjected creation to futility (or however you like to translate it) and that this works together for our (the lovers of God) good because of our groaning and/to the Spirit. The emphasis here is not on the details -- or meaning of details --of a person's life. The emphasis is on the type life itself.
I'll post more later, with a few examples of what the commentaries say. A few examples from the commentaries of good exegesis and pitfalls of inference and false choices should be helpful.
Again, make me explain if I'm not clear. I appreciate your help.
Later,
Last edited:
Arminian
New member
Jaltus,
I'll have to shorten what I was going to post. I couldn't get on TO for several hours, so now I'm behind schedule.
Here's what Cranfield has to say:
"Paul's meaning is that all things, even those which seem most adverse and hurtful, such as persecution and death itself, are profitable to those who truly love God. But not every sort of profit is meant. So the expression has to be made more precise. Hence the addition of 'for their ture good'. Paul does not mean that all things serve the comfort or convenience or worldly interests of believers: it is obvious that they do not. What he means is that they assist our salvation."
Cranfield is saying the same thing as I: that suffering leads to salvation.
Now that the exegesis is done, Cranfield goes on the make an inference: "But the reason why all things thus assist believers is, of course, that God is in control of all things."
This is that typical pattern of which I spoke. Exegesis is performed and we discover what Paul said and meant, and then an inference is made and we are told what he REALLY meant but FORGOT to say!
What Paul said that that God subjected creation to futility, and that's how he affected the world so that it could be saved. Cranfield agrees, but then insinuates that God controls every situation. So Cranfield and I agree what Paul meant, but Cranfield's sensus plenior is SUPERIOR Paul's meaning.
Now let's watch Moo agree with me about what Paul is saying that then watch Moo go wild with his own inferences:
"In this context, "all things" are particularly the "sufferings of the present time" (v.18; cf. vv. 35-37), but the scope should probably not be restricted."
OK, he agrees with me, but he doesn't want to restrict what was said, so let's see where he goes with it:
"Anything that is a part of life -- even our sins -- can, by God's grace, contribute toward 'good' (Haldane; Cranfield)." (For your notes, Cranfield did not say anything about God causing sin, so Moo must refer to him for another reason)
Wow, is he actually saying that our sins are by God's "grace"?! The statement appears ambiguous, because "can" may mean to him that God "could" use sin -- which he is not the cause of -- and turn it to good. That kind of comment wouldn't even conflict with Arminianism. But here is what Moo means by his comment:
"Rather, it is the sovereign guidance of God that is presumed as the undergirding and directing force behind all the events of life."
There it is! Even though Moo agrees with my exegesis regarding what Paul IS ACTUALLY saying, Moo believes his sensus plenior is superior to what Paul is actually saying! Therefore, he is saying that God CAUSES SIN in CHRISTIANS to aid in their salvation! Unbelievable!
I'll have to shorten what I was going to post. I couldn't get on TO for several hours, so now I'm behind schedule.
Here's what Cranfield has to say:
"Paul's meaning is that all things, even those which seem most adverse and hurtful, such as persecution and death itself, are profitable to those who truly love God. But not every sort of profit is meant. So the expression has to be made more precise. Hence the addition of 'for their ture good'. Paul does not mean that all things serve the comfort or convenience or worldly interests of believers: it is obvious that they do not. What he means is that they assist our salvation."
Cranfield is saying the same thing as I: that suffering leads to salvation.
Now that the exegesis is done, Cranfield goes on the make an inference: "But the reason why all things thus assist believers is, of course, that God is in control of all things."
This is that typical pattern of which I spoke. Exegesis is performed and we discover what Paul said and meant, and then an inference is made and we are told what he REALLY meant but FORGOT to say!
What Paul said that that God subjected creation to futility, and that's how he affected the world so that it could be saved. Cranfield agrees, but then insinuates that God controls every situation. So Cranfield and I agree what Paul meant, but Cranfield's sensus plenior is SUPERIOR Paul's meaning.
Now let's watch Moo agree with me about what Paul is saying that then watch Moo go wild with his own inferences:
"In this context, "all things" are particularly the "sufferings of the present time" (v.18; cf. vv. 35-37), but the scope should probably not be restricted."
OK, he agrees with me, but he doesn't want to restrict what was said, so let's see where he goes with it:
"Anything that is a part of life -- even our sins -- can, by God's grace, contribute toward 'good' (Haldane; Cranfield)." (For your notes, Cranfield did not say anything about God causing sin, so Moo must refer to him for another reason)
Wow, is he actually saying that our sins are by God's "grace"?! The statement appears ambiguous, because "can" may mean to him that God "could" use sin -- which he is not the cause of -- and turn it to good. That kind of comment wouldn't even conflict with Arminianism. But here is what Moo means by his comment:
"Rather, it is the sovereign guidance of God that is presumed as the undergirding and directing force behind all the events of life."
There it is! Even though Moo agrees with my exegesis regarding what Paul IS ACTUALLY saying, Moo believes his sensus plenior is superior to what Paul is actually saying! Therefore, he is saying that God CAUSES SIN in CHRISTIANS to aid in their salvation! Unbelievable!
Last edited: