Trintarian Warfare theodicy

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 2 2005, 03:06 AM']I wonder that too. The term theodicy leads me to speculate that perhaps the theory was born of an attempt to solve the problem of evil. Perhaps in the context of war? And that the attempt was based on an appeal to a trinitarian perspective.

I'm totally speculating, but I'd be interested to learn the facts as well.
[right][snapback]807992[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

yes, it is actually used as a theodicy model to work with how Pain and God relate.

if you wanna read alot check out "God at war" followed by "satan and the problem of evil" (both by my Greg Boyd) If you only have 3 hours or so open check out either "God of the possible" or "Is God to blame" (by Boyd of course) i recomend Is God to Blame cause it speaks more to the practical side of the issue

[N/A Gone]

ok, im goin to bed, I probably wont be on until mondayish...so read the books I recommend if u can or read the big thread I pasted

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 2 2005, 02:07 AM']myles...I like pickles, but they dont crow.. silly brits
honestly friend, this is a huge debate in the evangelical community because it smacks calvin in the face. the problem is the calvinists produce more useless sinful literature than Hefner. So the average theologian has bad info on this debate. Like Ive joked with, it is like someone using jack chick as a source for marian dogmas
I am appreciative of posters like myles and others who are working thru this and now jumpin on a soapbox and throwing old quotes at me, forcing me to use the bishop card on them. Which, made me leave their site.

btw, if anyone wants to AIM me or email, or pm, im always up for it. Intellegent catholic fellowship was the main appeal to joining this site.
dang, you really dont like me, um..it, um me..um, it..yea
As fluff(joeyo) can tell you, im not the best on philosophy terms, Im a theologian, an ecumenical theologian at that. So, im gonna look into this and perhaps even contact Boyd on it. cause my desire is to explain this, and I dont understand what you mean...but on the bright side..you made me go "ooohhhh" like christimas lights cause dictionary.com didnt know the word
well, i just posted a 411 novel, so that should give u a taste sir.

God bless you.

[right][snapback]807994[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Sorry, I've lately been steeped in the Greek theological tradition and my theological vocabulary has been tainted with words directly from the Greek that are difficult to really translate.

In this tradition, God essentially transcends the diastemic order. In English the only similar word I know of is diastem, which is a term used in dentistry to refer to the space between a persons teeth.
I am using it in the sense that God is God precisely because He transcends the diastemic order, whereas all created reality is by nature diastemic. These basically means dimensional.
My first problem with many theological theories is that they bring God too much to our level. Very few theological systems do justice to the utter transcendence of God in my opinion. Despite the view of some Orthodox theologians, I believe that authoritive Roman Catholic doctrine affirms and respects this transcendence, as does authentic Thomism. However, I keep finding that most other people's understanding of these does not do so.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 2 2005, 02:09 AM']yes, it is actually used as a theodicy model to work with how Pain and God relate.

if you wanna read alot check out "God at war" followed by "satan and the problem of evil" (both by my Greg Boyd) If you only have 3 hours or so open check out either "God of the possible" or "Is God to blame" (by Boyd of course) i recomend Is God to Blame cause it speaks more to the practical side of the issue
[right][snapback]807995[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Thank you! It's great having you here on phatmass. These are my favourite sort of discussions.

God bless you.

[N/A Gone]

favourite? oh no....

I admit I dont have the best philosophy background(fluff...u there? fluffy?) so I emailed boyd with ur concern sir. On the bright side, this is helping with getting me off terrace 1 of purgatorio.



anyone know how to disable the flood function?


ok, doing greek now, talk to you monday...fluff-you got the ball

Edited December 2, 2005 by Revprodeji

[The Joey-O]

Can't...refresh...fast enough...people...posting...too...fast...can't...get word in...edgewise...

[rkwright]

ok, so I've started into the massive novel, that will probably take me 2 days to finish and a week to digest.. but I'm willing to try it :

and forgive me on this, sometimes I jump the gun (like some of my earlier posts)

ok but goign to what I've read so far. It seems that the author, and this theory has the real problem of his events being EDF as he calls it. He points to the example of how in 1943 God knew that he would be married in 1979, and by knew he meant unchange facts, so then what real choice did the author have in 1979.

The thing that jumped into my mind was Judas and Jesus. Jesus knew that Judas would betray him with a kiss for 30 peices of silver (I think the silver was part of the prophsey? correct me?). This seems like an instance of God 'EDFing' absolute events that were to happen. Now the quick response that I've seen so far is that God somewhat 'jumps in' to make sure that stuff happens to his plan. But then you're left with the same delima as the author noted above. That is at the time of Abraham God through EDF knew what was to happen hundreds of years later when Judas betrayed Jesus. You're faced with the same problem you're trying to aviod. You must still account for Judas 'having no choice' to betray Jesus. And if this is just God 'jumping in' at one point to ensure events happen, then how many events did he have to jump in to ensure that Judas was there; it seems you have a long regression of events that God made sure happened to make sure Judas would betray... all this is starting to sound more and more like Thomas?

disclaimer, I am not meaning to 'argue', just learn more about all this

[N/A Gone]

i give up on greek...

i dont take it as arguing dont worry. My priest told me that I would be held to explain this to catholics cause for some reason ya'll dont talk in these terms.

anyway, continue to read. Your question is answered. But In open theism God can "settled" anything, the future exists in possibilites, but some are settled and somethings arent. its a delicate balance that I dont understand and tries to respect our free will.

as a famous theologian once told me, the matters of mary, and the incarnation needs the astrix, a miracle like that is not the norm.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Myles' date='Dec 1 2005, 07:08 AM']I categorically oppose Open Theism. Man's knowledge of time as a measure of movement between a and b is apprehended by memory and foresight. God however is timeless and exists in a never passing instant, the whole span of History is known to Him in that instant. God does not view time as we do, God has no time to view, He does not anticipate He knows.

The future for God is not undecided and cannot be undecided. The only way molinism would work would be if God were not timeless because then His knowledge would dependent on a time that has not yet occured. However, God is timeless Augustine taught this and Boethius, Aquinas and every Catholic doctor in good standing thereafter has taught this.

God already knows the outcome of everything. Before He created me He knew the final destination of my soul. I dont know it because I am spacio-temporal being who must experience memory and foresight but God knew exactly what I would choose before I chose it because of His vantage point. God doesn't force me to choose anything but He does know what I will choose before I do so. He cannot not know because He is timeless.

Does this make my life determined? No it doesn't. Can I do anything other than what God knows I will do. No I cannot. But the key thing is that God doesn't force me to do those things. He knows what I will do because He is timeless and being timeless He cannot fail to know anything. Yet He knows what I will choose because I am the one doing the choosing. In His never passing instant He has knowledge of all my choices because the whole of time appears before His eyes like a big tapestry of which He is equally able to apprehend all parts at once--bad analogy. God knows it because I choose it, I dont choose it because God makes me choose it. Its because a timeless being has a fundamentally different knowledge of things than a being in time. God does not have foreknowledge because God does not have time. He sees all and knows all because He is timeless. He knows exactly how my life will turn out but only because He sees all of time in His instant and thus sees all the choices contained therein at once.

To me thats not determinsm. It would only be determined if God was forcing me to choose what I choose and He doesnt. He knows what I will choose, He cannot fail to know because He has no time, but He doesnt will me to choose, for example, sin. Even though God knows my whole life it doesnt compromise my freedom of choice because my perception of time is completely contrasting to God's. God knows things because I choose them and being in a never passing instant He cannot help but see those choices. He doesnt choose my life for me.
[right][snapback]806810[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I like your approach Myles. It also makes me think, that if God's "knowing" can be described as in a state of becoming coincident with the sequence of our acting, it seems there is a passive potency in God in relation to the created order. I can see many reasons why people might make the association between this theory and process theology.

Revprodeji - what am I missing here? I like to think the theory is more subtle than that. I've just started reading the thread so maybe my concerns will be answered in a minute. Anyway. God bless.

[N/A Gone]

hey...I disclaimed and showed why it isnt processed theology on my original post...oyoy..

[The Joey-O]

Ok, I'm not going to try to come close to discussing everything that I want to. But, I'll give it the ol' college try.

Let me see if I can sumarize the issues (I'll probably end up being redundant to what others have said, but I'm afraid it's unavoidable):

1) The name: Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (I'll start with the easiest).

2) The issue of Transcendance (also known as the Immutability argument).

3) The issue of the nature of time.


Well, #1: The name Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy comes from a series of works done by Gregory A. Boyd in which Dr. Boyd articulates a Theodicy based in a Warfare Worldview and the concept of God as Love and Love as Risk. It's far more complicated than what I just said, but that's a sort of summary. Dr. Boyd was not attempting to reinvent the wheele. His goal was to articulate why there is evil and why God is not responsible for the evil. He didn't want to contradict with orthodoxy, ie, he firmly believes that God is good, immutable, perfect, transcendant, holy, sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. In no way does he ever desire to contradict orthodoxy. The system that he develops necessitates a different understanding the nature of time, not a different understanding of the nature of God. The term "Trinitarian" comes from the love emphasis. If God is love, then God must be relational. If God is relational He requires more than one person to be perfect. Thus, God must be more than one person, yet still be one God. The Trinity. "Warfare" is essential to his theodicy, because if evil did not come from God it would either have to come from Man or some other being(s). Well, it does. Evil comes from fallen angelic beings and Man. The fallen angelic beings seek to do battle with God. Man is often involved, and so on. I don't think there'll be any issues from this, so I'll just stop explaining it. I hope this gives you a brief understanding of why Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy was developed and why it was named what it was.

#2: As I said before, Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy does not contradict with God's Transcendant or Immutable nature. God's essence, God's nature doesn't change (I think there was a comment made by revprodeji that said God requires more than one essence or something like that. I think he meant to say attribute (or something along those lines). Essence shouldn't have been the word he was looking for.), rather God's actions change. For example God became angry with Israel and His anger burned against them countless times in the Old Testament. Yet there were times when He showed them love and compassion. There were times where He was reasonably happy with them. Well, this is because God can change what He does and when He does things. This means on some levels God changes. Now, this doesn't mean that God isn't perfect at times. Christians don't and haven't held the view of perfection as a static thing. Gregory of Nyssa said that perfection isn't static, rather it is infinate, constantly expanding. He was showing how God could be 3 and 1. 3 infinate persons would be forced to comingle to the point where they'd become 1 in there very nature. Also, what does it matter if God changes his emotions? If I become angry at a misjustice, I am not sinning or becoming worse. If I become joyous at an act of grace, I am not sinning or become worse. Those are the proper emotions for those acts. They in and of themselves do not bring someone closer or further from perfection. Therefore, we know that there are things that can change and do not make a person less perfect. This is true for God as well. It is appropriate for God to become angry at sin and happy at faith.

#3: Ultimately, this is a discussion of time, because if time were a force or an energy or a thing or a dimension, then God would have to be outside of it in order to not be influenced/overpowered by it. However, Open View Theism and Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy both say that time is not a thing nor an energy nor a force nor a dimension. Time is simply a human construction. A word that our brains have developed to understand the continuity between events and yet the fact that events progress and change. If that is all time is, then we do not have to worry about God being subject to time, because it is just a mental construct to help humans cope with reality. You see, most people imagine God looking down onto a giant timeline. He sees the whole thing. In Open View Theism, there is no timeline. It simply doesn't exact. Our idea of a "past" is simply a mental construction. Our idea of a "future" is simply a mental construction. There is no incramental nature to time (chronons) (read Peter Lynds he does a great job of overthrowing General and Special Relativity). God can know things about the future, because He knows all the variables. He can determine that a certain set of variables are unacceptable. He can determine that new variables need to be inserted (this is usually referred to as a miracle). He can set a path that says variables "a-t" will all eventually lead to conclusion x, which is vital and must be reached. However "t-w" won't get us there, so "t-w" will not be allowed. Free Will is important, vital to our dignity, but it isn't an end all.

To Thomists: It may be that you don't like Open View Theism or Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy, because you are a Thomist and you view Thomistic approaches as superior. I will remind you, however, that the Church allows for opinions other than Thomistic ones. I'm not saying Thomism is bad. It's just not my first option.

In Christ's Love,
JoeyO.

Edited December 2, 2005 by The Joey-O

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 2 2005, 02:49 AM']hey...I disclaimed and showed why it isnt processed theology on my original post...oyoy..
[right][snapback]808027[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'll look again, but all I remember you saying about it is that open theism affirms God's self-sufficient aseity and therefore is not process theology. While I can accept that it may not be process theology in the proper sense, I still perceive a similar problematic with the approach.

If I may ask a simple question in reference to Myles' position and your responses (and I apologize if I've just totally missed something basic):

Since God transcends the dimensional order, or to adopt Myles' approach, since God is pure act and perfect self subsistent being, how does the idea of God "knowing" all of history in an eternal "now", contradict free will? I guess I fail to see why it is necessary to posit open theism at all. Where is the tension between Divine foreknowledge and our free will that makes it necessary to posit a relationship of passive potency between God and our free will (referring to God's "knowing" temporality in possibility and a sequence of actuality)?

The impression I have at this point almost seems to be that you assume the only alternative to open theism is some kind of occassionalism.
But as I see it, open theism threatens God's transcendence because God seems rather to be less like God, and more like simply the greatest being in the diastema. If God doesn't see all of history in an eternal now, He does not really transcend history, but is rather simply the biggest player in history. Sitting in heaven calculating outcomes and guessing the future, perhaps essentially continuous with the temporal and dimensional reality of created being.

I'm not trying to criticize unfairly. Consider this post a question raised, rather than an accusation thrown.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='The Joey-O' date='Dec 2 2005, 04:12 AM']On a more personal not to Laudate: It may be that you don't like Open View Theism or Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy, because you are a Thomist and you view Thomistic approaches as superior. I will remind you, however, that the Church allows for opinions other than Thomistic ones. I'm not saying Thomism is bad. It's just not my first option.

In Christ's Love,
JoeyO.
[right][snapback]808043[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


disclaimer, Dr. Joey is a good guy and means this with a fluffy good heart. I have had some problems in the past with egotistical thomists that attacked in a way similar to a calvinist with this debate. they literally wouldnt allow anything other than their view and it was a stressful time. But I trust from what I can see it wont happen here.

[The Joey-O]

P.S. Please explain the "diastema" a little simpler. I understand that it comes from dentistry, but I have no idea what the heck it means or why it matters.

Thanx.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='The Joey-O' date='Dec 2 2005, 03:12 AM']To Thomists: It may be that you don't like Open View Theism or Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy, because you are a Thomist and you view Thomistic approaches as superior. I will remind you, however, that the Church allows for opinions other than Thomistic ones. I'm not saying Thomism is bad. It's just not my first option.

In Christ's Love,
JoeyO.
[right][snapback]808043[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Joey,

Although I was fed mostly Thomism is college, I am actually not a Thomist at all. I often find myself using Thomistic categories simply for convenience since many people are familiar with this system and its terminology.
It's funny because I was recently in a discussion with some fellows of Thomistic leanings who insisted that my views were more in line with Eastern Orthodox Theology than Roman Catholic, but personally I consider my views to be an eclectic hodge-podge of East and West.

And I certainly don't mean to insult your views. I quite respect them in fact. I am simply ardent and critical in theological discussions because I consider it to be the most important subject in existence and feel I must approach any theory (it’s not personal I assure you) with suspicion. Please do not take offense if I appear cold or antagonistic. This is not my intention. I hope to learn from this discussion and perhaps reach a deeper grasp of the mysteries of God, but I have no mind to assent to anything uncritically.

God bless.