Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 191820 | ||
Azure, Great questions. When Boyd uses the term "necessary", he is distinguishing it from the term "sufficient". In the parlance of logic, "necessary" means "must be at least", while "sufficient" means "is enough to establish". So, no, I don't mean that without evil, love is somehow a lesser possibility. Rather the contrary, for it is through love that we overcome evil, for love is the ultimate good and we are to "overcome evil with good" Romans 12:21. That is, the outcome of love is to restore a reality "without evil". The necessity of evil is not in evil per se, but rather the POSSIBILITY for evil. This allows for a reality in which there is no evil, yet the possibility for evil exists as an alternative to love, so the choice to love is not the only choice available, which would make it no choice at all, which would make it something other than love. Love is not love if it is coerced, or is the only option available. That love is chosen freely, often at great personal cost, is what makes it meaningful. And I agree, for those who choose to be obedient to God, to love is not optional, while the option lies in where we exercise that love. |
||||||
2 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | srbaegon | 191823 | ||
Hello Parable, I cannot agree that "love is not love if it ... is the only option available." With that logic, there was no love before creation, yet we know it is part of God's essence. Steve |
||||||
3 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 191825 | ||
I guess I should have qualified that remark by saying "the only option available TO US". Clearly, evil is not compatible with the glorious presence or divine nature of God. This is why it is often said that evil is what you get when God is rejected or denied. In 1John4:8 and 4:16 the bible teaches "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" and "And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him". Each of these verses necessarily imply that to not choose love is to not choose God. The choice is real, so love cannot be the only option, and if this is true, it can't be love if there is no real choice. |
||||||
4 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 191826 | ||
Orthodoxy's response to the error of Open Theism: http://www.carm.org/open.htm |
||||||
5 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 191827 | ||
yes, of course. Boyd's views are not universally accepted. However, he does justify his positions with abundant references to scripture and quite conservative interpretations thereof. Have you read any of his works? |
||||||
6 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 191844 | ||
Sir, "abundant references to scripture" are found in the works of many writers whose theology is far from orthodox, among whom are Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, Ellen G. White, E. W. Kenyon, Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland. Let's have no more promotion of Boyd's highly controversial ideas and writings on SBF, if you please. --Hank | ||||||
7 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 191863 | ||
Perhaps it would help if you would articulate, in a nutshell, what you mean by "orthodox", with maybe just one verse to support each point you suggest. I agree that the authors you have listed are indeed not just unorthodox, but perhaps even heretical. (for Eddy and Smith, there is no doubt) Do you mean to suggest that Open Theism in general and/or Boyd in particular are heretical? Peace, Parable |
||||||