Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Faith and Doubt After Sept 11 on PBS

Forum Quick Jump

331 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 10/8/2002 4:54 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi

But can an infinitely good act COME FROM finite goodness???? I don't see how. All other actions must be relativized according to the infinitely good act, then.

My logic is this: to the extent that one REALLY holds the Christ Work to be the INFINITELY UNSURPASSABLE act of divine mercy, one CANNOT come back and devalue that work based on any finite act that may appear less-than-omnibenevolent to us...and they cannot deny the infinite goodness upon which the act comes!

Iconoclast

Bold is mine.

I am confused by the implications you are drawing from this statement.

I totally agree with what you are saying insofar as the implication is that since we know that God is infinitely good based on the Christ Work then we know that everything He does is good. Thus anything that MAY APPEAR to be God doing something less-than-omnibenevolent to us really is just an APPEARANCE – it is not evil or complicity in evil but is really good.

When we see something that appears evil then there are two possibilities:

One) It is not really evil but good.

Two) It is really evil and therefore God is not doing it and is not in any way complicit in it.

Is this what you are saying?

Or are you saying that since the Christ Work is infinitely good God can still be omni-benevolent (infinitely good) if He sometimes does or is complicit in FINITE evil?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 10/8/2002 6:09 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Iconoclast

Bold is mine.

I am confused by the implications you are drawing from this statement.

I totally agree with what you are saying insofar as the implication is that since we know that God is infinitely good based on the Christ Work then we know that everything He does is good. Thus anything that MAY APPEAR to be God doing something less-than-omnibenevolent to us really is just an APPEARANCE – it is not evil or complicity in evil but is really good.

When we see something that appears evil then there are two possibilities:

One) It is not really evil but good.

Two) It is really evil and therefore God is not doing it and is not in any way complicit in it.

Is this what you are saying?

Or are you saying that since the Christ Work is infinitely good God can still be omni-benevolent (infinitely good) if He sometimes does or is complicit in FINITE evil?

thanks,
Iconoclast

Precisely [

] my question, Iconoclast. Let's hear it, Mephod Man.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/8/2002 6:11 PM (GMT -6)

[Meph: do you REALLY feel that Iconoclast's view has more plausibility than the traditional one?

Doc: I never said MORE plausible. But simply plausible. At present, I’m not invested enough to weigh them careful to resolve the issue.

TGB: I’m also wondering whether hearing God instruct us to get out of the way of evil like this (or a "less than ideal" circumstance—if we’re nothing calling it "evil" because God’s bringing it about, right?) is even possible for a community as opposed to just one person. One person might claim to have heard God instruct him to not oppose the man raping the minor in the alley way, but how would a community hear this?

Doc: This is an interesting observation Tom, and it definitely has implications for the default setting. Even if we grant that there are occasions where God reveals he is allowing an evil for a greater good, this doesn’t entail that the community should regard it as such. And it definitely places the burden of proof on God to reveal to the individual that in a specific situation the normal protocol is being abandoned.

TGB: If without being instructed by God, Doc admits that the PAST evil of Zosia or 9/11 MIGHT HAVE been God bringing about a higher good, what’s happened to the default setting?

Doc: Bingo. I strongly agree that the pattern of Jesus’ ministry must set our default setting on "what looks evil must be regarded as evil and resisted as evil."

Icon: (On 2 Thess. God sending a deceiving spirit). To me this is no different than saying that if one refuses to eat any food that God will send them a horrible wasting disease where their body consumes itself.

Doc: I appreciate your "natural cause-> effect" paradigm. I agree with it – with this one provisio: I think "natural" incorporates the spiritual (as sin spirit beings). I thus don’t interpret "spirit" language as being due to cultural ignorance. While this allows me to take the "spirit" language of the Bible in a more straight forward fashion than you, it creates one problem you don’t have. Namely, I have to account for God REALLY sending deceiving spirits to people. But I explain THIS the same way you explain the "natural cause-> and effect." When a person solidifies themselves in a certain direction, they open themselves up to spirit influences in that direction. When a person is solidified in untruth, God can only ask, "how can I now bring the most good out of their deception?" And sometimes, I think, this good might include allowing evil spirits to do what they want to do anyways – just like a person who doesn’t take care of themselves allows viruses to do what viruses do.

TGB: Looks to me on the basis of the dialogue between God and Satan that the belief that "God does all that God can do to minimize evil" is false,… If the behind-the-scene narrative is allowed to define for us what God’s reasons were for allowing any of this, we’d have to admit that the reason was God wanted to prove something to Satan. That’s it! It’s not about Job at all.

Doc: I think you are absolutely right. This, I take it, is the main function of the literary prologue: to introduce the readers to infomration the characters in the narrative never have access to. For the point of the narrative is the VAST IGNORANCE of humans in the face of suffering – so much so that we cannot blame God (a la Job) or place people (a la Job’s "friends") for evil that comes. There WAS a greater God – God’s mode of providence being defended. But it had nothing to do with Job.

This is part of the truth of the "creational variable" we talked about last year. There are rules to this chess game we know very very little about.

Meph: My logic is this: to the extent that one REALLY holds the Christ Work to be the INFINITELY UNSURPASSABLE act of divine mercy, one CANNOT come back and devalue that work based on any finite act that may appear less-than-omnibenevolent to us...and they cannot deny the infinite goodness upon which the act comes! The Christ Work is the ultimate grounding of my CHRISTIAN theodicy.

Doc: So long as you insist that the appearance of less-than-omnibenevolence is mere APPEARANCE, and that our default should be set by the one who reveals omnibenevolence in the first place – Jesus Christ – I have no problem. But sometimes in the past it has seemed that you were saying something like, "since God revealed INFINITE goodness on the cross, he can BE less than good in any finite instance and yet be INFINITELY good." THIS makes no sense to me.

IN other words, so long as your point is epistemological, not ontological, WE BE JIBBE’N.

Icon: Or are you (Meph) saying that since the Christ Work is infinitely good God can still be omni-benevolent (infinitely good) if He sometimes does or is complicit in FINITE evil?

Doc: I take it he is saying THE LATTER. You and I would say the former (viz. The infinite goodness of God means either that what appears evil is not [judgement] or that God is not doing it).

Cool

Greg

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 10/9/2002 5:37 AM (GMT -6)

Here's my question and it's extreme...but it will get me somewhere...

IF we say that God is IN ANY WAY, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, complicent in evil, what does this do to the designation of the Christ Work as an INFINITELY GOOD divine act?

Holla,

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 10/9/2002 6:45 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Here's my question and it's extreme...but it will get me somewhere...

IF we say that God is IN ANY WAY, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, complicent in evil, what does this do to the designation of the Christ Work as an INFINITELY GOOD divine act?

Holla,

Meph, my first reaction is that it seems like either these two claims would be mutually exclusive, or we are working with different understanding of "infinite" and/or "complicit."

As long as your understanding of "complicit" does not entail God "willing" evil as an end, then I'm ok with it. I don't see how we can deny that God is involved in evil, insofar as God is everywhere present, and insofar as God engages it for the sake of transforming it, and insofar as God created a world where evil was possible and perhaps even inevitiable though always against God's will.

Electra

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 10/9/2002 8:06 AM (GMT -6)

Electra:

quote:
As long as your understanding of "complicit" does not entail God "willing" evil as an end, then I'm ok with it. I don't see how we can deny that God is involved in evil, insofar as God is everywhere present, and insofar as God engages it for the sake of transforming it, and insofar as God created a world where evil was possible and perhaps even inevitiable though always against God's will.

We are on the same page there, Elektra. I think that I see what's wrong. Nah, I KNOW I see it.

Ok. This view I just stated above quite ANTEDATES the following lengthy discussions:

--omnibenevolence thread
--glorification idea thread
--Natural evil thread

This is important because BEFORE these discussions, the stuff above was the way that I justified God's FREEDOM OF WILL in the face of a PREVIOUSLY UNDERSTOOD conception of "omnibenevolence" which seemed to destroy that freedom. (Remember when I could only say that God was "above" good and evil"??) Basically I said that if the Christ Work really could be called an "infinitely good" act, then all the other stuff that God may have done would be gravy. The only way to say otherwise would be to declare that, for some reason the Christ Work WAS NOT infinitely good...and that seemed a little stupid to me. However, many clarifications and nuances have happened since then such that this thought isn't necessary anymore. Guess I haven't thought about that until now. Glad I see that now.

I guess what sent me back there was this whole complicity thing. Iconoclast's idea of "complicity" seems to be going back to that omnibenevolence discussion. The "God ALWAYS being FOR US right here right now thing" seemed reminiscent of the PROBLEM that I had with omnibenevolence previously conceived. Yep...that's what's wrong. I got lost in my thoughts.

Because I fundamentally agree with this:

quote:
When we see something that appears evil then there are two possibilities:

One) It is not really evil but good.

Two) It is really evil and therefore God is not doing it and is not in any way complicit in it.

The problem comes in when we start asking questions. With number one, WHY is what appears evil really good. Enter the "greater good" idea. With number two, WHAT is being complicit? Again, enter the "greater good" idea.

Iconoclast said:

quote:
I would say that God NEVER causes a lesser evil to prevent a greater evil or to gain a greater good. He only ALLOWS a lesser evil when He would have to cause a greater evil to prevent it.

Like Doc and Electra, I'm all about INTENTION.

Doc:

quote:
But I don't think this makes God EVIL, so long as HIS PURPOSES are GOOD. The intention, it seems to me, is everything

As long as God's not INTENTIONALLY being malicious and God's genuinely acting "for us" in greater good fashion WITHIN ALL CREATIONAL FACTOR BOUNDARIES, things are cool.

So, everyone...FORGET the "infinity" stuff above. It's all old stuff.

But the stuff about the Cross being efficacious at ALL LEVELS is cool.

Holla,

331 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:16 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual