Outstanding post! :BRAVO:Philetus said:Yes, but I’m always looking for somebody to talk with.
He didn’t address his post to me ... but, with (or without) permission, I would like to respond. I’m emailing this by way of my home computer relying on others to post it for me so I may not see any reply for a few days, if then.
Finally, someone who posts longer posts than I do if not more than you, Godrulz.
From what perspective then do you suggest creatures can know anything about God? The Open View is an honest reconsideration of the self-revelation God has made known to us, what is said of God in scripture (all that is said of God in scripture) and what is caused or allowed to be seen in the person of Jesus as opposed to starting with Augustine’s exaggerated view of immutability. The insistence that God is unaffected by creation as a notion that he obviously brought to the table from his earlier association with Greek Philosophy and (inspite of his many good writings) is not a week argument to be dismissed lightly. Augustine has become so idolized in much of the church that even to question his starting point is seen as paramount to heresy. I commend THEOLOGYONLINE for allowing this discussion. It seems to be so threatening to many that the topic has been banned on some ‘Christian Forms’.
Is there danger in personalizing God? Yes! It is risky for both God and us. Creatures love things and make images or representations of god in to objects of worship. Yet, that can not be justification for hiding our heads in the sand and dismissing even part of what we read in scripture. I agree that the god who relates to us on our terms alone is not god. But, what point is there in a god who does not relate to us as persons at all? Is he is any more than an object to be worshiped ... an idol that neither hears nor helps?
You seem to fail to recognize that scripture is full of God’s terms for personal relationships. Terms God has sovereignly committed to follow. These terms for governing relationships are what keeps personal relationships from degenerating into idolatry. This is for me at least what distinguishes the God who created us in His own image from the god created in the image of the Greeks, theologians or common panhandlers seeking to manipulate God for goodies. Much of the Open View makes us uneasy because it requires us to be much more responsible in allowing God to be the God who allows us to be us and suffers when we are not the us he created us to be.
Open View is not attempting to redefine God but rather to allow the self revelation of God in scripture and in Jesus to break free of the hindrances to relationship that have crept into our understanding of God. If the bible is not the revelation of God’s attempt at relating to humanity, what is it? If Jesus was doing anything other than making the heart, mind and will of God known in order to relate, what was he doing? If God was not in Christ reconciling the world unto himself for the purpose of relationship, what is the purpose of reconciliation? I see God in Christ as redeeming and refashioning me in His image for the purpose of relationship that involves me; something a Closed view either does not allow for or frustrates beyond comprehension. The danger of misrepresenting God is not new.
My point exactly, only I would say a god fashioned from pen and ink or a popular trend is no less an idol, even if the paper has been recycled or the ink spilled could fill an ocean or the trend has lasted centuries.
My answer also is let God be God. Still, those who fail to attempt to understand God will ultimately remain in danger of idiolatry, and this is not necessary. The mystery has been made known to us (and is being made known) in scripture and in Jesus. Yes, we must worship God in "spirit and in truth" but we do not worship an unknown God. We worship the father of Jesus Christ. I would argue that rather than “define your relationship with God” ... just have one. I think you will find that God is far more loving, redemptive and even personable than any theology can imagine let alone define. He is even more competent than our idols will allow him to be. He is in control of himself.
As for the bad guys playing catch with live babies on bayonets, (an evil you used to illustrate your point that makes me shudder) I cannot idolize God out of that one. I refuse to make God responsible for such evil. I only have to believe that God is competent and will deal with them in keeping with the terms he has spelled out both in the book and on the cross. He is in ultimate control and yet allows such evil. He has the last word and he is faithful.
So where do we begin to understand God? We must start with the God on the cross in creation relating to God’s creatures. Why the cross? After all , it is mere foolishness to the Greeks But, the cross is the wisdom of God for those being saved from using bayonets on babies. Though it does not always save the victims from the acts of evil men, it has the power to save and make new the men capable of such acts. The cross is the only remedy for evil I find in the scripture: a personal loving God who suffers at the hands of evil men in order to restore relationships that reflect his unchanging character. The cross is God’s terms. The cross is the power behind “Go and sin no more.”
The cross does not define God. The cross reveals the true nature of God. It defines us! It does not even defend God, as the problem of evil often assumes. The cross holds no defense only offence. The cross exposes us and evil for who’s it is and reveals God as the greatest risk taker for loves sake.
I too, am horrified at a God who allows evil ... horrified at God for allowing evil. And my horror is intensified when I come to the cross where God suffers as I do, but more importantly suffers because of me and still desires to relate to me. At the cross, I am horrified because I see evil for what it is ... my own. Not God’s. My horror turns to brokenness not because God could have stopped evil, but precisely because he did not. He who said do not repay evil for evil confronts evil on his own terms and in keeping with his own rules at great expense and risk in order to relate to me ... on his terms!
That changes men and that changes everything. And that is no whim.
How can you have it both ways? Either few are willing to accept God’s call or no one is able to resist it. You just can’t have both. Resisting God’s will does not make God any less than God. Men with books and baronets are no more a threat to God than men with nails. And no theology will ever make God smaller than he was when we nailed him to the cross. God allowed himself to become 'small', Jesus emptied himself of all the big definitions that we have come to idolize so that we could really know the Father. Maybe your God is still too big to love. Dump the big definitions. Clean the idols from your book shelves. Get to know God in the face of Jesus.
Philetus
Post 1489