ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[elected4ever]

Creationists affirm micro vs macro evolution, based on science and reason. Evolution is a flawed, pseudo-science (evolution as a humanistic concept to explain origins apart from a supernatural Creator...the scientific evidence stands against evolution).

Whether macro or micro does not change the fact that God created. In some ways both terms are correct depending on context. It could be ether or both. As for as I am concerned evolution as a process of evolving is correct but evolution as primary cause and effect is flawed. The primary cause is God created. The management of the created is evolution. Maybe i am misunderstanding what you mean by macro and micro as it pertains to evolution.

 

[godrulz]

There is certainly a great deal of pseudoscientific atheist/humanistic rhetoric out their that upholds evolution like a religious doctrine to deny the possibility of a role for God in the creation of life. I have no doubt that Creationists have plenty of detailed research to back up some excelent rhetoric in refutation of this atheist/humanist doctrine. I have particularly found ideas about the more recent existence of dinosaurs to be quite interesting. I think finding evidence of such a thing would we wonderful. Humble pie is a nice desert to serve all around.

In a feeble attempt to get this discussion back on track, may I ask if you attend a particular church, and what is their stand in the spectrum from Calvinism to Open Theism?

The rhetoric label strikes me as deflection.

I attend a Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada church (sister organization of U.S. Assemblies of God). I appreciate the roots of your Calvary Temple (Chuck Smith?).

Our classical Pentecostal denominations are more Arminian and generally reject Open Theism as heretical (but not as strongly as a Calvinistic group would). There is probably an openness to the view and proponents within our fellowship, but our doctrine is more traditional, Arminian (simple foreknowledge) on the subject. Despite being ordained as a pastor by my fellowship in 1986, I have been an Open Theist since 1978 (it was a bit of an issue during my pre-ordination...I did not allow it to be divisive when I was a pastor, which I am no longer...I am a paramedic).

An Assembly of God missionary has written a good article encouraging more openness to the Open View (he makes a positive summary of the view and how it would be compatible with AOG).

 

[godrulz]

Whether macro or micro does not change the fact that God created. In some ways both terms are correct depending on context. It could be ether or both. As for as I am concerned evolution as a process of evolving is correct but evolution as primary cause and effect is flawed. The primary cause is God created. The management of the created is evolution. Maybe i am misunderstanding what you mean by macro and micro as it pertains to evolution.

Micro would be a change within species, as we observe in real life in our times (dog varieties, butterfly adaptations, etc).

Macro would be one species becoming another species (reptile to bird, ape to man, etc.). This is not observed because it is not true. It also assumes complex organisms come from matter and simple organisms. Man did not evolve from a worm or a monkey!

 

[elected4ever]

Micro would be a change within species, as we observe in real life in our times (dog varieties, butterfly adaptations, etc).

Macro would be one species becoming another species (reptile to bird, ape to man, etc.). This is not observed because it is not true. It also assumes complex organisms come from matter and simple organisms. Man did not evolve from a worm or a monkey!

Then I was using macro different than you. To me macro does not mean change of species. Change of species is fabrication and not science. What you identify as macro-evolution is not even evolution. Not unless you are Murlan and have a magic wand.

 

[bling]

Clete asked to discuss this question here, instead of on the tread: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35664 by cellist.

Clete does a great job of attacking the straw man of Calvinism, when there are only two options given then O.V. can beat out Clete’s straw man. What I am suggesting is that both ideas are wrong and there other alternatives. I give another alternative, but it to might be wrong in favor of the way God truly does operate.

Clete said: Since they cannot be both wrong because there are no other rational alternatives (the future is either open or it isn't), then we can know that one is wrong and the other is right.

The future can be open to man as far as man is concerned and somehow miraculously known by God which is not the same as God setting man’s future. Man can still make free will moral decisions, since man can be held accountable for those decisions, which defines a “free will moral decision”. You are assuming God’s knowledge of the future would force God to make man’s future decision, which I and others have said, is not required for God to know the future moral decisions of man.

 

[themuzicman]

Let T abbreviate the proposition that you will answer the phone tomorrow at 9, and let us suppose that T is true.

Using the example of the proposition T, the argument that infallible foreknowledge of T entails that you do not answer the telephone freely can be formulated as follows:

Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism

(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of "infallibility"]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/​

In essence, for foreknowledge to be certain about a future decision, that decision must have already been caused. If God foreknows all future decisions before He created, and no other free will agent existed before creation, then there is only one eligible candidate for who caused those decisions.

Muz

 

[Clete]

Clete asked to discuss this question here, instead of on the tread: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35664 by cellist.

Clete does a great job of attacking the straw man of Calvinism, when there are only two options given then O.V. can beat out Clete’s straw man. What I am suggesting is that both ideas are wrong and there other alternatives. I give another alternative, but it to might be wrong in favor of the way God truly does operate.




The future can be open to man as far as man is concerned and somehow miraculously known by God which is not the same as God setting man’s future. Man can still make free will moral decisions, since man can be held accountable for those decisions, which defines a “free will moral decision”. You are assuming God’s knowledge of the future would force God to make man’s future decision, which I and others have said, is not required for God to know the future moral decisions of man.

It cannot be both. A door cannot be both open and entirely closed. A woman is either pregnant or she is not. Likewise, the future is either exhaustively settled or it is not. There is not a third rational alternative. You can talk all day long about how man perceives it vs. how God perceives it, or whatever; but at the end of the day, regardless of how it is perceived, the future either is settled or it is not.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[bling]

Let T abbreviate the proposition that you will answer the phone tomorrow at 9, and let us suppose that T is true.

Using the example of the proposition T, the argument that infallible foreknowledge of T entails that you do not answer the telephone freely can be formulated as follows:

Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism

(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of "infallibility"]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/​

In essence, for foreknowledge to be certain about a future decision, that decision must have already been caused. If God foreknows all future decisions before He created, and no other free will agent existed before creation, then there is only one eligible candidate for who caused those decisions.

Muz

Muz said:
In essence, for foreknowledge to be certain about a future decision, that decision must have already been caused. If God foreknows all future decisions before He created, and no other free will agent existed before creation, then there is only one eligible candidate for who caused those decisions.

Again, I do not know how God’s foreknowledge works or how future works. Once you step out of our three dimensional world you leave science behind. Do you believe God is trapped inside our three dimensional world?
The human as a free will agent makes moral decisions he can be held accountable for making. God did not cause humans to make these free will decisions or they would not be held accountable, but God knows at least some of them prior to the human knowing them as an example: John the Baptist before his conception, Peter hours before his denials, Judas before his betrayal, or the Jewish spiritual leadership before condemning Christ.
I would not think it was impossible for God to know all human free will decisions before the creation of this world, but I do not know how He would know them, but I do not understand how any miracle is done. You are trying to put God into a logical system to reasoning out how things can or can not be done, is that logical in itself?
If you want cause then “God caused humans to be made that make decisions they can be held accountable for making without making the decisions for them.”

From your little analogy: What makes things unchangeable in the future is the human’s free will decision that will not change, because it is known by God and not God making the decision. Since the human is making the decision he is held accountable. I see God defining free will decisions as those decisions the agent can be held accountable for making.

 

[Clete]

Let T abbreviate the proposition that you will answer the phone tomorrow at 9, and let us suppose that T is true.

Using the example of the proposition T, the argument that infallible foreknowledge of T entails that you do not answer the telephone freely can be formulated as follows:

Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism

(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of "infallibility"]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/​

In essence, for foreknowledge to be certain about a future decision, that decision must have already been caused. If God foreknows all future decisions before He created, and no other free will agent existed before creation, then there is only one eligible candidate for who caused those decisions.

Muz

Outstanding post!

I will be bookmarking that link! :thumb:

 

[Clete]

The human as a free will agent makes moral decisions he can be held accountable for making. God did not cause humans to make these free will decisions or they would not be held accountable...

{snip}

Since the human is making the decision he is held accountable. I see God defining free will decisions as those decisions the agent can be held accountable for making. I see God defining free will decisions as those decisions the agent can be held accountable for making.

There were about a dozen things you said in your post I could have chosen to respond too but I think this was the most interesting and least discussed on this thread so I chose it (i.e. freely).

This definition renders either the word "free" or the word "accountable" meaningless because the line of thought here is circular.

You said, in so many words, that men are held accountable for their decisions because those decisions were freely made and then said that free decisions are defined by the ability to be held accountable for the decision.

Well that's as circular as can be. Does the sky define blue or does blue define the sky? It cannot be both.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Let T abbreviate the proposition that you will answer the phone tomorrow at 9, and let us suppose that T is true.

Using the example of the proposition T, the argument that infallible foreknowledge of T entails that you do not answer the telephone freely can be formulated as follows:

Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism

(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of "infallibility"]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/​

In essence, for foreknowledge to be certain about a future decision, that decision must have already been caused. If God foreknows all future decisions before He created, and no other free will agent existed before creation, then there is only one eligible candidate for who caused those decisions.

Muz

Modal logic deals with contingencies, necessities, possibilities, certainties, etc. It helps show that exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is not possible.

 

[godrulz]

It cannot be both. A door cannot be both open and entirely closed. A woman is either pregnant or she is not. Likewise, the future is either exhaustively settled or it is not. There is not a third rational alternative. You can talk all day long about how man perceives it vs. how God perceives it, or whatever; but at the end of the day, regardless of how it is perceived, the future either is settled or it is not.


Resting in Him,
Clete

God knows reality as it is. It is self-evident that the future is partially settled and partially unsettled. It is thus correctly known as such, even by an omniscient God.

The issue is the nature of creation and the nature of the future, not whether God is omniscient of not (we all agree that He is...He knows all that is knowable).

 

[Clete]

God knows reality as it is. It is self-evident that the future is partially settled and partially unsettled. It is thus correctly known as such, even by an omniscient God.

The issue is the nature of creation and the nature of the future, not whether God is omniscient of not (we all agree that He is...He knows all that is knowable).

I'm not sure that this is relevant.

The question at hand, at least in regards to Bling's post, has to do with whether or not the future is EXHAUSTIVELY settled or not. Bling is saying that they are somehow compatible but they are contradictory and so cannot be any more "compatible" than is a closed door that is partially (perhaps even mostly) open. In other words, Bling's argument has to do with exhaustive foreknowledge vs. free will.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

I've been the logic route on if/then statements.

Many are inherently flawed and I believe this is one of them simply because there are unknown factors in the equation.

Again, this type of reasoning tend to elevate the human mind and it's capacity for truth to an ultimate position of truth. I challenge this notion simply based on one context alone. We are not omniscient, nor even close.

If you cannot know all factors for an equation, your equation despite it's perfection, it limited.

Exhaustive foreknowlege I have shown over and over again is both an illogical comprehension on our part, and nondeterministic.

The fallacy tends to equate foreknowledge with otherly determinism and lack of personal freewill and this is shown to be false.

I cannot give analogy nor logic equation, but I can point to the truth. If I knew you were going to wear jeans and a polo tomorrow based on your choice (I went in a time machine and looked). We cross all kinds of logical barriers. First, We cross the line of freewill, you say it doesn't exist once I know, but this is not true, it is your own determinism that negates freewill (every act you do negates freewill because it then is consigned to the past by your own choosing). You will choose no other clothing, but it isn't me that made your determism, it is you. You cannot choose otherwise, not because of my knowledge at all, but because of your knowledge and determinism. The reason you have 'no choice' is because when you made your decision you gave yourself no other choice. You in effect negate your own freewill by your own choice. It makes no difference whatsoever what another perceives, it is your determinism that obfuscates freewill to the past. If God knows the future choice, it is based on your determinism and direction. You are the master of your own determinism in this scenario and because you 'choose' there is not such thing as freewill, you constrain yourself to determinism. You cannot go back in history and choose the other path. There ever is only one choice ever in your life and your character, personality, and values very much determine your future. There is no such thing as freewill. You cannot be another person, you can only be you, and being who you are, there ever is only one way to go and it is based on who you are. You are very deterministic and as such, you are really predictable even to someone who doesn't know your future decision (even if OV is correct concerning God).

 

[mitchellmckain]

Those same Scriptures command US to rightly divide the Scripture so as to be a workman that NEED NOT BE ASHAMED!!!

I would be ashamed if I were David Koresh!

But you claim that rightly dividing the Word of Truth cannot even be done! Or at the very least we have no way of knowing when or if it's been done and the interpretations of obvious lunatics hold as much weight as your own. That is shameful Mitchell. SHAMEFUL!

You are putting words into my mouth. I never used the word "weight", and I was not even familiar with this use of the word "dividing", I was speaking of authority. And the simple fact of the matter is that you can fish in my mind for the next one hundred years for a justification of Mormon or Catholic claims to authority and you will not find them. I utterly deny and repudiate such claims to authority. The Bible is the only authority put into the hands of men for the determination of the truth!!!!!!

I would hardly be here offering up my interpretations of the Bible if I did not think they were correct, and I could not think my interpretations were correct if I did not think it was possible to correctly interpret the scriptures. As Christians we have a personal relationship with the living God. With God clearly all things are possible. If God speaks through us, then where is the authority? Is the authority in God or in us? If God speaks to us then we know the truth. But if a person speaks and we do not hear the voice of God then how do we know if God has spoken? How shall we know that God did not speak through David Koresh and Jim Jones and that what they taught was wrong? We judge the spirits by comparing what they say to the written word for therein lies the authority to make such judgements. The word of God is our safety net and our sheild against the powers of darkness.

And so you don't get to speak for God but I do?! What planet are you on? If you are not allowed to judge for yourself what the Bible says (i.e. what God says), why are you telling me that I am?

You make no sense. With every post I make I judge for myself what the Bible says. Why should I not urge that others do the same?

I will share my interpretation of scripture in hopes that it will clear up some of the confusion that people like me may have about things, but I will never use this to turn their attention from God and the Bible to myself. What I say may be true, God may speak through me, but I have no authority. Look not to me but to God and the scriptures.

How am I supposed to take anything you say seriously at all in the first place?

Don't take me seriously. Take the Bible seriously. Listen to God not me. Take responsibility for your own choices and your own life. Search for God without me. I am nothing. My Lord Jesus is everything.

You had a choice to make. You could have chosen to be inconsistent and say "Of course David Koresh's interpretation was completely wrong and sinful." but instead you decided to stick to your guns and destroy any credibility you might have had based on your ability to articulate your thoughts in writing. Poor choice. What you should have done was to see the obvious mistake you've made and repent of it. An option, which is still open to you, by the way; that is, if your credibility is worth anything to you at all.

I would rather have no credibility at all than point to myself rather than Jesus. I would rather be thought a fool and not lead one person anywhere than be thought wise and lead just one person astray. Yes, you forced me to make a choice between myself and my Lord and I choose my Lord. You are absolutely correct, I put no trust in myself so why should you.

Sorry, your "clever" ploy has failed. "Get behind me, Satan!"

The rhetoric label strikes me as deflection.

Of course we have some serious disagreements. And there is great bitnerness in these disagreements. But I was hoping to suggest to you that the true source of this bitterness is not really between us. It has another source.

Rhetoric is not a dirty word. It has very important functions in our society. My posts are filled with rhetoric. It is an important part of the way we communicate (particularly in debate but even in discussions as well) and it is definitely a part of how we make consensual decisions (consider politics in a democratic country).

I attend a Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada church (sister organization of U.S. Assemblies of God). I appreciate the roots of your Calvary Temple (Chuck Smith?).

Chuck Smith, yes. Calvary Temple, NO. It is Calvary Chapel. Is your distortion intentional? I know that Calvary Chapel does have some mild criticisms of Pentacostalism. Is this the source of some bitterness?

Thank you for the information about your denomination. I do not do much more in Calvary Chapel than participate in services. I very much doubt that many of my views would be welcome there.

 

[godrulz]

We have a good local church named Calvary Temple in my area. Must have been a Freudian slip, though google also linked Chuck Smith with Calvary Temple (perhaps an offshoot from Chapel?).

I thought Calvary Chapel was originally charismatic, but perhaps new leadership changed course? Google confirms that it was charismatic, but maybe not like AOG.

I am not bitter nor adversarial. I disagree and think you put science above Scripture at times. I also think many intelligent people are not always biblical experts/exegetes.

 

[mitchellmckain]

I thought Calvary Chapel was originally charismatic, but perhaps new leadership changed course? Google confirms that it was charismatic, but maybe not like AOG.

They claim to be halfway between charismatic and fundamentalist. Calvary Chapel distinctives affirm the reality of the spiritual gifts and even encourages their expression but does not agree that they are required for salvation. First and foremost, they read and take seriously the words of Paul on the matter of spiritual gifts in regards to how they should be managed in church services.

I am not bitter nor adversarial. I disagree and think you put science above Scripture at times.

Calvary Chapel may be fundamentalist and I admire the role of fundamentalism in defending the integrity of the scriptures, but I must clearly admit that I am far from fundamentalist. I embrace a very limited form of Sola Scriptura: simply that the Bible is the only authority given into hands of men for the determination of the truth. Consider by comparison the following Wikipedia defnition of Sola Scriptura.

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the only source of Christian doctrine.

I cannot even understand what is meant by "self-authenticating" for such a suggestion would seem laughable to any atheist. Nor is it clear to the rational reader. Indeed it may be clearer to the non-rational reader. The degree to which it interprets its self is so extremely limited that this claim is absurd. And as I said before it suffices only in the sense that this is exactly what God has to say to the world. It serves God purpose perfectly, but God not the Bible is our Savior.

I struggle and do my best to understand things but my understanding is not what I put my faith in. I will certainly not put my faith in the interpretations of others. As I said before, science, by studying what God has created, can indeed reveal the purpose of God to those who are aware. But not by making a "christian science" to oppose "atheist science" for neither of these are science at all but rhetoric. I have studied science in truth so I can see both of these for what they really are. True science cannot speak on the topic of God.

You are free to look for truth wherever you heart takes you. But I must follow as God leads me.

I also think many intelligent people are not always biblical experts/exegetes.

Indeed, our pastor Terry Long does not have the fraction of the formal education that I have. I have an MDiv as well as a Masters in Physics. But Terry Long is called by God and his knowledge of scriptures makes my own knowledge of the scriptures nearly insignificant by comparison. Education and inellegence have their uses but in far more things than not, these count for nothing.

My calling is to seek reconcilliation between science and Christianity, and it is my conviction that the key to this reconcilliation is understanding and accepting the limitations of each. And so I am dedicated to reminding scientists of their limitations and Christians of theirs, while defending both Christianity against those who misunderstand Christianity and defending science against those who misunderstand science.

 

[godrulz]

The church made a mistake to abandon science and the arts to the secular world. It is noble to integrate science, art, and Christianity.

Does Francis Schaeffer resonate with your ideas at all?

 

[mitchellmckain]

The church made a mistake to abandon science and the arts to the secular world. It is noble to integrate science, art, and Christianity.

There is a difference between Borg-like integration and real unity. The first is what the Catholic Church wants for Christianity, the second is represented by the growing sense of a Christian identiy that transcends denomination, that has built itself around a worldwide Christian consensus about what it means to be Christian.

Borg-like integration annihates differences and tries to make everyone the same. Real unity comes when we learn to appreciate our differences and come to understand that our diversity actually makes us stronger.

Consider the Communist block a couple decades ago. In the Soviet Union everyone was a member of the communist party. But does mean that everyone actually believed in Marxism? Is that the kind of world that you want for Christianity? One where every person pretends to be Christian and does unspeakable things in the name of Christianity?

You must learn to accept the fact that if Christianity had not released its grip on science we would still be back in the dark ages.

I am horrified by how politically powerful the gay rights movement has become. They have come within a hairs breadth of turning the US into a theocracy ruled by their religion which says that people are born with a sexual preference. I have a friend in California who was denied an engineering licence simply because he dared to say in a required (political correctness) class that he did not think that it was proven that homosexuality was genetic. I cannot fault the Christian right for fighting back. But I fear that it is just a part of a back and forth pattern which will tear this country apart.

Does Francis Schaeffer resonate with your ideas at all?

I found the section on apologetics interesting. It should be very obvious that I am very much an apologist rather than an evangelist. I offer no criticism of evangelism, it is only that my empathy for different points of view makes me far more suited to apologetics.

On the other hand, unlike Schaeffer, I am an advocate of pluralism. Is see the hand of God in human diversity as well as in the diversity of life on this planet. Genesis chapters 6-11 provides me a great deal of inspiration for this. I think that the Tower of Babel represented the rebuilding of the kind world that God destroyed in the Flood, one of mankind united by language and culture. But God found righteousness only in the one who insisted on being different -- Noah. Therefore God destroyed this attempt to unite all of mankind and instead promoted diversity of language and culture to increase the opportunities for individuals to be different.

I believe that the Protestant Reformation is repetition of this divine strategy. Sure our baser nature seems to keep us arguing among ourselves promoting division and conflict. But in "unity" we find the danger is worse. We see it in the history of Catholic church what happens when our baser natures become a part of what rules a "unified" Christianity - and by extension we can imagine what a "unified" mankind might be like. But it is in a diverse society that the unlikliest individuals (like Erin Brockovich) can stand up against the powers that be, to defend what is right.

Plurality is not relativism. It recognizes that there are indeed objectively recognizable or discoverable absolutes, but that there is also a great deal which cannot be objectively determined and in which many choices may in fact be correct. Determining which is which is indeed a problem -- but just because life is difficult that is no reason not to live.

Too many Christians envision the posibilities of the world as one of a single point of light surrounded in all directions by darkness. But since I believe in an infinite dimensional God and the infinite possibilites of life and goodness, I see something quite different. I see us on an infinite plane with light in all directions, but that the plane is dotted with pits of darkess that people stumble into blindly. Jesus is the way. God is our salvation. But these are not just excuses for telling everyone that they must do things my way. We are all blind. God can lead us past the pits of sin and death. But this does not mean that He must lead everyone out in the same direction, and it especially does not mean that we can lead anyone out ourselves.

In summation with regards to Francis Schaeffer, I would find much to agree with and much to disagree with, just as I find with you.

 

[godrulz]

You are well spoken. Have you ever written a book?