Tom spake:

For LFW to exist there needs to be a context that’s clear enough on the one hand and ambiguous enough on the other to make intending the right as well as intending the wrong both rational options. That’s all epistemic distance is. It’s not “God’s epistemic distance from us,” it’s our limited (not eradicated) perspective (epistemic stances) and fallible capacities processing the possible explanations of our context, and all of this coupled with the embodied and habituated drives that influence choice.

well as Packer fans......

 

---

Hmm. How to do this? We may just be talking past one another. Dunno.

After hearing you again on the probability problems you perceive (ala Spetner) with what we’re floating out there, I just don’t see in your criticisms anything that speaks to the issues we’re bringing up. You keep talking about UR and the impossibility of a probability of 1 that all will right choose God as if that’s something we’re arguing FOR. But we’ve agree—a mathematical probability of 1 is out of the question. What else can I say to assure you of this?

Laika: What percent of the population is living in harmony with God when they die? Less than 50%? Around 10%, we really don't know but it's a low percentage I think. So, when I get to heaven and find out that 100% of people will have freely chosen God, I think something was rigged. We really didn't have LFW. UR posits CFW or less (no free will), that's the only way it could work.

Tom: Let’s try this. (1) You won’t get to heaven and find out 100% of people have freely chosen God. If everybody makes it, it’ll happen long after you get to heaven. We’re talking about the eschaton. You and I will both have had a few drinks and laughed over all this long before it all happens. (2) Why in the world would you think it was rigged IF it was the case that all those who make it to heaven “freely choose God”? YOU made to heaven by freely choosing. Why not possibly anybody else? And if anybody else, why not possibly everybody else provided the same constraints required (faith, repentance, freedom) apply to everybody? What’s to complain about? The basis for hoping that all eventually make it has nothing to do with rigging the constraints, it has to do with prolonging the constraints indefinitely. Again, there’s nothing in what I’m suggesting that’s analogous to winning the powerball TWICE.

If all make it, they’ll make it the same way you made it, by freely believing. But if it can be shown that the contextual constraints necessary to making freely believing possible cannot obtain in any possible postmortem world, then not only is UR impossible, but even being hopeful is impossible. Death would fix a person’s eternal destiny. God would not be able to redeem people after death because persons would be ontologically incapable of faith. But I’m not hearing anybody so far offer an argument for such an impossibility. I hear you say, “No salvation if not freely chosen.” I’m in total agreement. So tell me, what makes you think “freely choosing” after death is an absolute impossibility?

-----------------

Laika: What is CFW? I really don't know.

Tom: Let me introduce you to CFW. Here’s as good a description of it as I’ve ever run into:

“I think that in heaven we'll have LFW but will have become perfected such that we freely choose the right way. Call it character solidification. For example, I cannot be tempted to smoke. It's never tempted me and never will. Yet I still have the ability and potential to smoke.”

Let’s see. Who made that comment? Oh, it was YOU! See the clear distinction you made when you said, “we’ll have FLW but…”? Things WILL change. We won’t be free THEN in exactly the same sense we NOW are. You call it “LFW but…,” but what you actually describe is just compatibilistic freedom. Like you and smoking. I totally understand. You’re compatibilistically free with regard to smoking. It’s got no hold in your character, nothing in which to tempt you. That’s CFW. You possess the physical capacities to go through the motions of smoking, but making the choice is psychologically impossible for you given you character.

-------------------

Laika: There is a possible world where CFW is true but I don't know what those creatures would be like. What mechanism would God reach inside them and flip switches and stuff?
Perhaps they'd be like lower order animals that just mindlessly carry out instinctual
instructions. But CFW creatures would be so fundamentally different from us in constitution
that I see now way God could change us from LFW to CFW people once we die.

Tom: Well, I hope you see that your description of human choice in heaven is precisely what CFW amounts to. But God doesn’t flip us from LFW to CFW. We determine ourselves. I agree with you totally that God could not create us compatibilistically loving from the get-go. We have to freely BECOME that. And we do. But consider this, Laika, temporal becoming into solidified loving character after you initially believe is NOT a requirement for salvation. Yes, it’s a requirement for salvation for those who continue to live on earth. But suppose a hardened criminal on his way to the electric chair sincerely repents and believes (the chaplain leads him to Christ) just before he’s locked into the chair and dies? He freely chose, right? He wakes up in heaven, right? Is he free in the sense YOU said we all are when we inherit heaven? I think so. When did he BECOME this? It doesn’t seem that he did. Like the thief on the cross whose last act on earth was to freely believe, our hardened criminal believed and died. So I don’t see any problem with supposing that persons who freely believe (LFW) in hell are thereupon ushered into the presence of God. They don’t have to hang around in hell for 10 or 20 years solidifying their characters anymore than the thief on the cross solidified his before he did.

--------------------

Laika: I don't have a theology for what happens after death.

Tom: You seem to be pretty sure on what happens after death to me. You know, for example, that death fixes a person’s eternal destiny, that there are no offers of grace in the after death, that LFW can’t exist beyond the grave, etc. That looks like theology to me!

------------------------

Laika: There aren't just three options and because we don't like two of them the third one is correct by default.

Tom: If you have a fourth option, I’m all ears. But if the three we know off really cover all the conceivable possibilities, and if one IS true, then it follows that in rejecting any two we commit ourselves by default to the third. You can offer a fourth or you can you don’t know which two are false and which one is true, but you can’t say there’s something wrong with the thinking of those who conclude that since options 1 and 2 are false (so far as they can tell), that option 3 is true (so far as they can tell). Nobody’s claiming absolute certainty on this stuff.

Laika: I do have hope that God gives everyone a fair chance. But it's based on what they did before they died, I have no confidence in the evangelism of dead people.

Tom: I can appreciate how you feel Bro. Personally, I’m more than hopeful that God gives everyone a fair chance. That’s something I’m as certain of as I am that God exists and we’re accountable to him. That the chances or opportunities are all on this side of the grave is a different question. I don’t know how to prove that death fixes a person’s eternal destiny. And I can’t think of a reason to not be confident in the offer of God’s grace wherever and whenever it’s offered.

Tom

Both of you, Laika and Said, are misunderstanding what the compatibilistic exercise of the will is. Laika unknowingly described it when he described what he thinks glorified persons in heaven will be.

But you know what? It doesn’t matter. If we want to deny compatibilistic free will, then UR become EASIER, not harder. For now we can ask Laika to consistently hold to the same symmetry he’s been arguing for. If solidification into good is possible then solidification into evil is possible. But both of you add to this the continuing possibility of our choosing evil in heaven right? We’ll still be libertarianly free with respect to evil. We cannot IRREVOCABLY self-dispose into love. We’ll always be free to sin. Well then, let’s balance out the other side and uphold the symmetry shall we? Let’s say that those in hell likewise cannot IRREVOCABLY self-dispose into evil. They’ll always be free to choose God. This would be your metaphysical counterpart to insisting that the redeemed in heaven will always be libertarianly free to sin.

But Laika, if your views on what the freedom of glorified human being is includes our being free only to love (because of who we’ve become and who God has made us), then there’s you CFW. That’s all CFW is.

Sahid: If God is confident enough and willing enough to allow us to be morally capable creatures now, what is to stop him from allowing that same capacity post mortem?

Tom: I’m not suggesting that we won’t be capable to choose, or even to choose love, and certainly that’s significant. I’m suggesting what Laika has suggested, that we really do BECOME what we choose as we choose love and that eventually this excludes other unloving possibilities.

Sahid: What new reason would be have for removing the capacity to sin?

Tom: Because its served it’s purpose in our becoming.

Sahid: It seems to me that our ability to make morally significant decisions is fairly central to who we are.

Tom: Indeed. It’s central to who we become. But after we sufficiently become?

Sahid: Why would God go to all the trouble of "refining" us, if he is just going to throw out our ability to make moral decisions? Wouldn't the New Testament themes of refining and disciplining make more sense if we were being perfected with the goal of using our capacities properly.

Tom: You’re describing MY view, Sahid. What sort of “refining” or “perfection” is it which leaves us as free and capable of sinning as we presently are? What’s been refined if that’s the case? What’s been perfected?

Sahid: I mean, what's the point of painful discipline in matters of sin and righteousness if God will one day simply force upon us the inability to sin?

Tom: Come on guys. This isn’t difficult. We’ve been all over this before. God doesn’t “force upon us the inability to sin.”

-------------------

Tom: For LFW to exist there needs to be a context that’s clear enough on the one hand and ambiguous enough on the other to make intending the right as well as intending the wrong both rational options.

Laika: LFW exists for Satan and angels, else they could not have rebelled.

Tom: Agreed.

Laika: Satan was "full of wisdom", hence ambiguity is not necessary.

Tom: Not true. “Full of wisdom” does not preclude all ambiguity.

I’m not equating sin with ignorance, Laika. I’m just saying that sin is a rational, free choice that we make. You can’t have the volition floating out acting freely cut off from the intellect.

Laika: Only the ability to willfully choose to go your own way, LFW.

Tom: Yes, but what is choice, Laika? What of rationality and intention? We REASON our way into CHOOSING. If not, I don’t see how we can be held responsible. To be held accountable for the exercise of our WILLS, surely that exercise must be rational and intentional.

Laika: Remember the lie in the garden was about knowlege. If you have knowlege, you will be able to choose right and wrong was Satan's lie to Eve. But sin isn't about knowledge, it's

about volition/choice/will.

Tom: I’m not suggesting sin is “about knowledge” per se. Surely we “execute” our intentions through the “will.” But we also “form” our intentions through the use of our “reason.” Saying “it’s not about knowledge” doesn’t mean reason or rationality are not necessary, defining features of responsible choice.

Do this for me, take reason entirely out of the picture, remove it from our capacities. Pretend humans have no reason, no mind, no rationale, no intellect, no sentient perceptions (since it’s “not about knowledge”). Now, show me a responsible exercise of the will in such a being.

Thought so.

Tom

Hi Jeff-

I’m not following you.

It’s my understanding that, as you say, people will be changed into Christ’s likeness when they see him, they will receive the divine nature, at the parousia/resurrection. I’m not the one disagreeing with this, Sahid and Laika are (as far as I understand them). They’re arguing that in heaven we’ll remain as libertarianly free to choose good and evil as we now are.

I think our being glorified and completed by the divine nature includes our being forever free from the freedom to sin. Sahid thinks this amounts to God’s “forcing upon us the inability to sin.”

So where are you on this? It seems you believe we will be compatibilistically free with respect to love. What do you say to Sahid who thinks this amounts to God’s “forcing upon us the inability to sin”? In my view, to speak of glorification as a forced inability to sin is…well, I don’t wanna say what it is. Sorry.

I’m not seeing how most of what you said applies to the question of whether or not we shall be compatibilistically loving at the resurrection—Christ’s glory? Modes of divine existence? Those are important issues. I just don’t see what they have to do with the question at hand. What am I missing?

I do agree with you that “there is no positing that all believers will have, theretofore, been solidified into holiness by their prior LFW choices.” That would rule out the dying thief’s sharing in the Kingdom since he had no journey through the solidification process. He died after repenting. I only brought that up to ask why we must suppose that those in hell who choose Christ must be expected to remain there for some time.

Jeff: See, that's where I think D. has it a lot simpler, Tom. He isn't constrained by plausible scriptural readings. That freedom from the constraints of plausible scriptural exegesis is what makes yall's view a lot easier to defend.

Tom: I admit to limiting myself to plausible biblical views on this question, yeah. I’m not ready to embrace universalism if convinced that it is not a plausible biblical hope.

Tom

Post Edited (jefscott) : 2/3/2007 9:24:33 PM (GMT-6)

Earlier, you said:

It’s my understanding that, as you say, people will be changed into Christ’s likeness when they see him, they will receive the divine nature, at the parousia/resurrection. I’m not the one disagreeing with this, Sahid and Laika are (as far as I understand them).

Post Edited (TGB) : 2/4/2007 9:10:57 AM (GMT-6)

Tom: Ok, Jeff. I really, really want to understand your perspective. ANd this is how I think I can get it.

Take me through YOUR view of hell. What happens to me...when...and why?

HOW does judgement happen to me and on what basis?

Explain the "get out of hell" card think to me.

Maybe this will help me understand your position more...because I'm getting lost.

Jeff: I don't know exactly how hell works in detail. As for when, I think some of it is at the parousia, and some later. But that's not so important for what we've been discussing. I just think judgment is FULL accountability to that which we are GIVEN by God. No get out of hell card. The basis of judgment is WHAT WE ARE GIVEN. We are given CAPACITIES, both voltional and intellectual. To the extent that the unrepentant can

1) be reasonably certain that relating in a certain way is how God INTENDED them to relate,

AND

2) have the volitional power to competently accomplish said relation,

they will suffer fitting, negative consequences for acting otherwise. What is fitting? I don't know. It's not my call, anyway. God is who decides what is fitting based on His knowledge of all things relevant to the creational project.

For believers, there is also a works accountability. I think we are forgiven our past sins (and any works accountability related to them) because of justification by faith. We have peace with GOD therefore THROUGH Christ's atonement. But there is still works accountability for post-conversion relating to Christ as our master. We will be held accountable as his servants. Paul seems to make this pretty clear, to me.

So does the atonement have any affect towards those who are unrepentant in this life? I'm not sure it does. If they die, thereby missing out on the fellowship in Christ's kingdom, and if they are held FULLY accountable for their misrelations, I don't see off the top of my head why the atonement would be necessary for them. In a sense, they are paid up. Their worth, like ours, was extrinsic with respect to the temporal end of Christ's glory. But after judgment, that is irrelevant.

This judgment is what I call a side-effect of the implementation of the temporal end of the creational project. It was entailed in that implementation because of how accountability is correlatively tied to motivation. I.e., judgment/accountability IS motivation to rational beings who have not become perfect love yet. So the only way full judgment can be conditional (via a "get out of hell" card) is if motivation, itself, was conditional. They are correlatively linked.

Once all the temporal aspects of the creational project are fully accomplished, I have no reason to suppose that God will not just make the unrepentant compatibilistically holy like us. Because I have no reason to believe that they could possibly be deceived after their judgment eliminates all epistemic distance. Every mouth will be stopped from its pathetic excuses. All will CONFESS. And they will KNOW. They may have no capacity to change their heart. But God CAN. And I think He will. ALL WILL BE ONE AND AT PEACE.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 2/4/2007 4:49:06 PM (GMT-6)

What I hear you and D saying is that God has the desire for beauty. Suffering for the attainment of solidified right-relating is beautiful. So God puts us through the suffering so HE CAN BE SENTIENTLY SATISFIED by the beauty of our suffering. But how is that disinterested love? Motivating people maximally to attain maximal right-relating is conceivable as disinterested love, though.

Why LFW then? Because Christ seems to have the capacity (according to scripture) to receive sentient satisfaction from subordinates who volitionally adore, praise, and worship him. But apart from creation, he can't experience that. God, on the other hand, might be perfectly sentiently satisfied with the adoration He receives from His subordinate Son. In which case, creation is for Christ's glory. But it is for the Father, insomuch as the Father takes pleasure in pleasuring Christ.

Perfect love is satisfied this way without positing anything else except for accountability correlatively tied to loving motivation. No need to try to explain post-mortem hell in terms of the Father experiencing beauty at the expense of our suffering. This is what is problematic. Because it puts our suffering as a condition of God's pleasure.

But if we see post-Fall suffering as somehow necessitated as the inevitable (in some cases) or most fitting (in other cases) means to attain Christ's glory, given that he must now suffer, himself, then we don't have to posit ANY suffering that doesn't easily fit that end. And I don't see how a post-mortem rehabilitation fits that end. It seems gratuitous, and hence unnecessarily problematic unless it can be tied to motivation.

Now we could say that post-mortem hell is WHEN consequences are motivating. But why deny that they motivate now? They motivate me now. So I see no reason to tie the beauty motivation to post-mortem suffering. If people can't be motivated NOW to avoid mis-relation NOW, why not just say God will conform to His nature without positing suffering that somehow gives God a sense of satisfaction?

They're going to end up being compatibilistic in the end anyway, right? So it sounds like we're saying God has this time frame in which He is limited to attaining this sense of beauty from LFW. So He's going to hold out for that LFW beauty EVEN IF WE HAVE TO SUFFER. Doesn't that sound bizarre? If He can enjoy living with us ETERNALLY in a compatibilistic state, why is this blink-of-an-eye time span important enough to God for Him to require our suffering for His temporary satisfaction?

I say our suffering is necessitated for CHRIST alone. This way, God is not requiring our suffering at all, for His pleasure. He is CONSTRAINED by the means fitted to rendering Christ the maximal beneficiary of creation. At no point does God ever require suffering or TOLERATE suffering ONLY for His own pleasure. This is what perfect love means to me.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 2/4/2007 6:36:46 PM (GMT-6)