Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Rather, the Fall/corruption of nature begins in the very 2nd nanosecond of creation/the big bang. It is built into the fiber of the world as we now know it. ... So, yes, we are ill and our bodies decay and die for exactly the same reason there are destructive earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes-- because that is "the way things are." But "the way things are" is not the way they were meant to be. And it is not the way they will be in the new creation.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Far better to either embrace an integrated classical/Augustinian paradigm OR an integrated openness/ Christus victor worldview than this ill-conceived mutant hybrid, perhaps.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Rather, the Fall/corruption of nature begins in the very 2nd nanosecond of creation/the big bang. It is built into the fiber of the world as we now know it. ... So, yes, we are ill and our bodies decay and die for exactly the same reason there are destructive earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes-- because that is "the way things are." But "the way things are" is not the way they were meant to be. And it is not the way they will be in the new creation.

---

I don't get it. That seems to be saying that God could have made a perfect world and couldn't (or chose not to). Or else that a corrupting influence sneaked in during that very first nanosecond.

I agree that "that's the way things are". I also agree that "that's not how they're supposed to be" and that Jesus "will remake it as it ought to be". But - unless I have misread you - I'm not sure how this cosmology gets from the first state to where we are at the moment.

The Adam and Eve story at least offers an explanation, even if it's not one I "buy" in any literal sense.

---

That was the last question asked at the conference, when everyone was tired and ready to go home, so I'm not sure the answer I heard from Boyd was as detailed as we might like (I'm guessing a more detailed response would be found in
Satan and the Problem of Evil which I haven't had a chance to read yet-- Boyd writes faster than I can read!).

But I think Boyd's answer would again just be the basic foundation of the open position-- that God chose to create an "open" universe-- one in which we (both humans and non-humans, e.g. angels) were free to choose good or evil. Freedom is essential to love-- love is not really love if it is not chosen. Boyd suggests that there is a certain metaphysical balance here-- that the degree to which we are capable of choosing good is limited to the degree to which we are free to choose evil. Once a freedom is given, it cannot be revoked. i.e. if you are free to choose good or evil, then you chose evil and God revokes/ undoes your evil choice, that means you never were free to choose evil-- God would always override that choice. The amount of power/dominion someone or some being is given is the range of their power/ability to do either good or evil (i.e. exceptional humans can do tremendous good-- or tremendous evil). Similarly, for metaphysical reasons, once a territory is given it cannot be revoked. So Lucifer was given dominion over earth pre-fall (Lucifer's fall that is), with the capacity/power to do tremendous good-- but of course, chose evil instead. Now God's task is to "do war" on Satan (which Boyd explains "Akido-like"-- turning the power of evil back on itself) in order to rescue humanity and all of creation from this corrupting power.

The irrevocability of free choices is part of the metaphysical reality of things. In the same way that God cannot make a square circle or a married bachelor, God cannot undo free choices because that would mean they were made out of unfree freedom.

Now my head is hurting.



--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Rather, the Fall/corruption of nature begins in the very 2nd nanosecond of creation/the big bang. It is built into the fiber of the world as we now know it. ... So, yes, we are ill and our bodies decay and die for exactly the same reason there are destructive earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes-- because that is "the way things are." But "the way things are" is not the way they were meant to be. And it is not the way they will be in the new creation.

---

I don't get it. That seems to be saying that God could have made a perfect world and couldn't (or chose not to). Or else that a corrupting influence sneaked in during that very first nanosecond.

---

So again, just to clarify-- yes, Boyd is suggesting that a corrupting influence-- Satan-- acted during that first nanosecond. "Sneaked in" would not be entirely correct because God is not surprised by our free choices (even tho Piper would like to characterize the open position that way). God foresees all our infinite possible choices and all the subsequent choices/ consequences of those free choices. God has a plan in place (like a super master chess player on steroids) to insure his promised future in any contingency, but cannot foreknow which of those futures will actually unfold because the future choices of free (but contingent) creatures cannot be known, although they can be anticipated. So God anticipated the possibility of Satan's corrupting influence but also foresaw the possibility of a far different future had Satan chosen differently. But in either contingency God has a plan to rescue humanity.

If this is making your head hurt as it is mine, Boyd says that is "why we can't know why". We have finite brains, so are able to comprehend/anticipate a finite number of possible futures. Even a master chess player has a finite number s/he can "see out"-- a finite number of possible moves they can plan ahead for. But God is infinite, and so has an infinite capacity to anticipate our possible free choices and all the interrelated consequences.

Because our free choices are all interrelated in an infinitely complicated web-- e.g. a seemingly insignificant decision on the other side of the world a millennia ago impacting my free choice today, for example-- we can't possibly have the capacity to see how any particular event is related to that integrated interconnected web of free choices/ "natural" consequences of the Fall, etc. We "can't know why" we can only know the character of God, which is always for good, always for love.

Now my head hurts even more!


--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Solly:
I remember reading David Watson's account of his struggle to be healed of cancer. He and his community were profoundly shaken when the expected healing didn't happen. Perhaps Newman's 'Mission' devotion is a better way - 'God knows what he is about'.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So again, just to clarify-- yes, Boyd is suggesting that a corrupting influence-- Satan-- acted during that first nanosecond.

---

Okay, I get you. I've read 'God at War' but not 'Satan and the Problem of Evil'. It's on the list...

Thinking about it, the Adam and Eve story fits quite well with all this - humanity 'fell' and rebelled against God, in a cosmos where evil already existed. We sometimes forget that the Genesis story has evil (in the form of the snake) already there in the Garden of Eden before the forbidden fruit is eaten.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

I haven't read much about 'open theism' but I am wary of it. While I'm not a fan of Calvinism, and dislike too heavy an emphasis on predeterminism, the idea that a sovereign God doesn't know the future really makes my hackles rise. That, to me, is like us projecting our insecurities onto Him. I think it's presumptuous.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
For my money, though, the difficulty comes when it's allied with an over-spiritualisation of this issue. Spiritual warfare, in my view, is more about tackling our own weaknesses and inadequacies, about tackling issues of social injustice, on fighting for the rights of the down-trodden and marginalised.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The fact that David Watson, as Laurelin states, had a more balanced view is because his roots went back further into the classic tradition.

---

Yep.

quote:

---

Spiritual warfare, in my view, is more about tackling our own weaknesses and inadequacies, about tackling issues of social injustice, on fighting for the rights of the down-trodden and marginalised.

It's got bugger all to do with marching around town and shouting and bawling at so-called 'principalities and powers'.

It's about 'fighting the good fight,' a militancy of approach. The Church Militant.

---

I agree with all of this, but I still do think there is a place for actually commanding the dark powers just to bog off. I mean, Martin Luther did once throw an inkwell at the devil. Yeah, I know Luther had issues. And medieval baggage to boot. Even so, I can't quite discount his experience there. In addition to the principalities and powers that are at work, for example, in an oppressive regime.

I'm a cautious charismatic, a questing one, I suppose. I've certainly seen much silliness in this area, much bad practice and probably a lot that was harmful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Proponents will insist that's not quite what they believe. Open theists believe God knows every possible future as if it were the only future. That God is not at all surprised by anything that comes to pass, he is never taken off guard.

---

Oh, OK. That doesn't sound quite so heretical ...

quote:

---

That being said, it is a radically different paradigm, so some caution is in understandable and prudent.

---

Indeed.

And really ... all this philosophical stuff makes my head hurt.

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

Firstly, I'm not sure why it then makes 'power prayers' more acceptable - though cliffdweller presumably felt it should. I'm also not sure how it works pastorally when prayer 'fails' (it seems to leave a weight of a counter possibility on the person praying whose prayer 'failed') - do we just encourage people to continue praying in the hope of an ever more unlikely alternate future?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
otoh, I think there is something of comfort to the ailing/grieving person we're praying for, when we join with them in saying "this is just evil" and affirming their instinct that something is seriously f****d up with the world where this sort of thing (childhood cancer, say) happens.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Not following your assumptions here?

I also think the more radical warfare/open theist paradigm gives an arguably more satisfying framework to understand non-healing.

---

quote:

---

The real problem, as I said before, is the weird hybrid of the two that tries to mesh warfare theology with Calvinist sovereignty, leading to the very bad fruit we've talked about here.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Not following your assumptions here?

I also think the more radical warfare/open theist paradigm gives an arguably more satisfying framework to understand non-healing.

---

What's the answer it gives? AFAICT it basically consists of a mix of God couldn't, versus God possibly could if only you had known how to work better with him to bring about the more realized state in which you would have been healed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The real problem, as I said before, is the weird hybrid of the two that tries to mesh warfare theology with Calvinist sovereignty, leading to the very bad fruit we've talked about here.

---

I think 'power prayers' and 'calvinist theology' are orthogonal to each other, I don't see how the topic of the OP merges in reformed theology in any particular way. [/QB]

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I've seen a similar development within the Baptists in the UK. Contemplative prayer, pilgrimage and retreats and so on are de-rigeur in some Baptist circles these days.

Bring it on, I say, there's a lot of fruitful interaction.

I think you're right about the dangers of creating hybrids though ... although one could argue that the Anglican communion is a hybrid as it tries to meld the Catholic with the Reformed (or reformed).

I think there can be a creative tension from such initiatives and experiments.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Absolutely, Chris ... the thing is, though, pragmatism seems to win every time in some of these churches - despite the collateral damage.

@South Coast Kevin - it could well be that your friend's pulled muscle was healed in answer to prayer, it could just have easily happened naturally. I have a Christian friend who is a physiotherapist. Speak to her about this sort of thing. With orthopaedic and other musculo-skeletal conditions apparently spontaneous remission happens all the time ... whether or not there's faith or prayer involved.

@Truman White, there's more to theology than Piper on the one hand and the Bethel types on the other. To consider just these is to use an exceptionally narrow frame of reference.

Lots of churches - of all theologies - do good stuff in the community. Some do good stuff in other ways. How would we go about assessing the 'impact' as it were of a convent of nuns or a monastery somewhere?

Are these invalid because they're not out on the streets button-holing people for Jesus?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If you think the latter ("if only you...") is even a possibility in the warfare/open theist paradigm then you have just NOT been paying attention at all.

---

quote:

---

And yet, that weird hybrid is precisely what you see in most of the Pentecostal churches practicing the sort of "power prayers" we're talking about.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

God foresees all our infinite possible choices and all the subsequent choices/ consequences of those free choices. God has a plan in place (like a super master chess player on steroids) to insure his promised future in any contingency, but cannot foreknow which of those futures will actually unfold because the future choices of free (but contingent) creatures cannot be known, although they can be anticipated.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I like South Coast Kevin. I think he's a good bloke. I don't want to see him hurt by any of this stuff. But then, he's an adult, he can make his own choices.

---

On the one hand, thanks for your concern.

On the other, please would you stop treating those who hold views you disagree with as spiritual children who'd really benefit from a good bit of mentoring from wise Gamaliel? Deal with it; some people have read the same Bible as you, and even had some of the same experiences as you, but nonetheless come to very different theological conclusions. It doesn't mean we're spiritually immature and will come round to your view once we've been around the block a couple of times.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posted                      

sigh.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If you think the latter ("if only you...") is even a possibility in the warfare/open theist paradigm then you have just NOT been paying attention at all.

---

Well, I've read a bit around the subject - so have been paying some attention. When one starts to talk about 'partnering with God to expand the work of the Kingdom', the possibility exists that the possible futures in which one wasn't healed was 'chosen' because of our actions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

And yet, that weird hybrid is precisely what you see in most of the Pentecostal churches practicing the sort of "power prayers" we're talking about.

---

This is only true of you define everything other than 'open theology' as some form of Reformed theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[qb] As I said, I think the roots of power prayers lie elsewhere - one can see similar things in contemporary culture, but if you want to treat everything as a nail I suggest you start another thread on open theology.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

God foresees all our infinite possible choices and all the subsequent choices/ consequences of those free choices. God has a plan in place (like a super master chess player on steroids) to insure his promised future in any contingency, but cannot foreknow which of those futures will actually unfold because the future choices of free (but contingent) creatures cannot be known, although they can be anticipated.

---

I'm not quite sure why future choices of free (but contingent) creatures cannot be known by God. Would it somehow make them less free, if he knew in advance what those choices would be? I don't think so....any more than I think the fact that my wife always knows exactly what I'll pick from a menu, interferes with my freedom to choose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:

Anyhow - 'spiritual warfare': For the most part, it seems to consist of wannabe dragon-slayers tilting at windmills. For instance, there is an intricate mythology built up around territorial spirits - loosely based on a fanciful extrapolation from a couple of lines in Daniel. Then there is the deliverance industry, spiritual-mappers, people casting demons out of the local Freemason's lodge, the chip-shop, the toilet-bowl....and even the church. There is the cacaphony of rebukes, authority-taking and "loooose him and let him go". And what does it ever achieve?

Nothing....unless you count the warm, self-satisfied glow of the 'spiritual warriors'. Nothing....unless you count destroyed faith, disappontment, division in the church, and the endemic spiritual immaturity which so often accompanies these superstitions.

And superstitions they most certainly are. They are attempts to influence the spiritual realm, by the employment of extra-scriptural rituals.Superstitions.

The truth is, the bible doesn't begin to justify any of this nonsense. It's made-up stuff.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Seriously, would you rather I didn't shout a warning if you were about to be run over by a lorry?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Cliffdweller's talking theology, Chris Stiles is talking theology. You aren't. I wouldn't even grace Vineyard teaching with the title.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No, I'm not saying anything like that. I was speaking specifically about the hybrid of Calvinism and warfare theology I've seen in American Pentecostal churches I've been a part of, and contrasting that with the Open/warfare theology I saw at the conference, that's the relevant distinction. It's not the only two options in the world, rather it happens to be the two particular options I was discussing at that particular time.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No, I'm not saying anything like that. I was speaking specifically about the hybrid of Calvinism and warfare theology I've seen in American Pentecostal churches I've been a part of, and contrasting that with the Open/warfare theology I saw at the conference, that's the relevant distinction. It's not the only two options in the world, rather it happens to be the two particular options I was discussing at that particular time.

---

That's fair enough - but contra your personal experience the majority of churches in which 'power prayers' are practised are far from 'Calvinist' in any sense. I don't think the OP context was the same as yours.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't believe that's true, at least in the US. I've got pretty strong connections in the wider Pentecostal community here, as well as with some of the major movers/shakers in the spiritual warfare movement.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't believe that's true, at least in the US. I've got pretty strong connections in the wider Pentecostal community here, as well as with some of the major movers/shakers in the spiritual warfare movement.

---

In that case, name the movements and describe the issues you see. Going back to the OP - the problems described were in a non 'calvinist' context - so if they are the same issues you see then 'calvinism' itself may have little connection with the problems caused.

[At the moment, and given the tangent - you sound seriously like a convert to something who is blaming the ills of the world on the movement you left]

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, fair call, South Coast Kevin. I'd been flitting between Purgatory and Hell when I posted that and hadn't quite settled back into Purgatorial mode.

---

Thanks for this, Gamaliel. Warning of approaching lorry duly noted.

I've also forgotten what board I'm posting in, so I sympathise! My penchant is for reasoned, measured argument in Hell, sorry Hell Hosts...

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
To me the bottom line is to be person-centred. Ask the person themselves if they would like prayer and if so how they would like you to pray, explain the styles/ approaches that are possible. Listen to them carefully and then either take them to a service where the style is what they are comfortable with or pray for them yourself, with a heart that is open to be a channel of God’s blessing in whatever form it takes.

---

That's a very thoughtful response, MrsBeaky - I am saddened to think that in many prayer situations, this would be thought of as a new idea

[ 03. May 2013, 17:13: Message edited by: Chorister ]

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I went to a conference this week featuring as keynote speaker fav open theologian, Greg Boyd. I expected him to address theodicy, of course. I was surprised that he framed that discussion in a defense of "warfare theology". Surprised both because Boyd is a well-known and avid pacifist, and surprised because, like Gamaliel, my time in the Pentecostal community has shown me far more excesses/ dangers/ abuses in the spiritual warfare movement than wins.

---