quote:

---

1) The "general election" approach. Every person who comes into existence is placed on this earth for a reason: Love.

---

I hear ya. But doesn't this have some type of toll on the particularity/universality dimensions of the God/world relationship that some people find very important? I would think so. Moreover, it's not like we are saying that God "places" every person into existence to love. Like lots of direct intention is involved on a personal level. We are actually saying something like:

For any potential human who happens to come into existence, that human being is an INSTANCE of the CATEGORY of beings who have the opportunity to have loving relationships with God.

This is an important distinction, I think. What would Modes think?


*******************************

quote:

---

2) The "selective compatibilism" approach. God can determine whatever God wants to determine about the future. If God wanted to, God could exhaustively determine a person’s life. However, this does not necessarily entail that God exhaustively determines every individual’s life.

---

Two problems: 1) It would seem that for God to determine that a SPECIFIC person (including genetic makeup) WOULD exist in the future, God would have to ensure that all genetic ancestors of said persons not only CAME to be but would come in contact, procreate and take care of their children long enough for them to do the same thing. For example, I would not be EXACTLY who I am if my great-great-grandmother had not met my great-great-grandfather. For God to insure that I would be born, there would have to be a LOT of micromanaging going on with ALL of my ancestors. A LOT. 2) For God to be able to do "compatibilism" of this type (actually eternally settling the particular existence of a person in the future) would seem to create a VERY problematic situation with regard to theodicy...and God's unilateral power. That would be giving God a WHOOOOOLE lot of ability...hightening all the issues we see Brandon's thread on the other forum.

Good to see ya again.


Returning the volley,


"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

Post Edited (TGB) : 2/26/2007 7:24:26 AM (GMT-6)

quote:

---

I hear ya. But doesn't this have some type of toll on the particularity/universality dimensions of the God/world relationship that some people find very important? I would think so. Moreover, it's not like we are saying that God "places" every person into existence to love. Like lots of direct intention is involved on a personal level. We are actually saying something like:

For any potential human who happens to come into existence, that human being is an INSTANCE of the CATEGORY of beings who have the opportunity to have loving relationships with God.

---

But remember how OVTers talk about 1) The nature of infinity: it cannot be subtracted from or “diluted” in any way; 2) The nature of Love: it must always be concrete/particular. God’s love and attention is applied to each individual person as if they were the only recipient of this love. So if you exist, you automatically have this going for you. YOU are the lost sheep; YOU are the lost coin; YOU are the lost son (the nature of love makes this possible). If you grumble at the fact that this is as true for everyone else as it is for you (the nature of infinity makes this possible), the you become like the older brother who complained instead of celebrated when the lost son was found.

quote:

---

This is an important distinction, I think. What would Modes think?

---

Are you trying to get me in trouble? I gave up predicting WWMT? a long time ago!

quote:

---

Two problems: 1) It would seem that for God to determine that a SPECIFIC person (including genetic makeup) WOULD exist in the future, God would have to ensure that all genetic ancestors of said persons not only CAME to be but would come in contact, procreate and take care of their children long enough for them to do the same thing. For example, I would not be EXACTLY who I am if my great-great-grandmother had not met my great-great-grandfather. For God to insure that I would be born, there would have to be a LOT of micromanaging going on with ALL of my ancestors. A LOT.

---

I forgot about that. I wonder if this objection limits God’s creativity. Does selective compatibilism require exhaustive determination of everything (e.g. particular genes, etc.) about a person? Or, for each purpose that God wants to determine, is there a range of DNA/ancestral history that God could use to bring this purpose about? Let’s say God determined that the prophet Balaam should be confronted by his donkey when he kicked it. But donkeys do not have the necessary neurons for speaking Hebrew to renegade Ancient Near Eastern prophets. Shouldn’t God be able to make a donkey speak Hebrew without exhaustively determining the evolution of donkeys in general, and the genetic makeup of that particular donkey? OK, that was a lame example, but do you follow my quesiton?

quote:

---

2) For God to be able to do "compatibilism" of this type (actually eternally settling the particular existence of a person in the future) would seem to create a VERY problematic situation with regard to theodicy...and God's unilateral power. That would be giving God a WHOOOOOLE lot of ability...hightening all the issues we see Brandon's thread on the other forum.

---

This is a problem if selective compatibilism entails “eternally” settling particular events. Selective compatibilism also begs the question of theodicy, which the open view is trying to address. (E.g., If God can make a donkey speak Hebrew, why doesn’t God make me speak Hebrew instead of having to study it on my own until I get it right?) This approach does have theoretical holes but it may have pastoral merit, which is where your question seemed to be leading.

Overall, I think that OVTers are in a much better position to offer the kind of counsel Mordechai offered Esther: Who knows? Perhaps you have come to this place for just such a time as this.

Backatcha,
Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

Edited by - Electra on 04/27/2003 5:19:38 PM

quote:

---

The good news is, I don't need to "know" this in order to know my life has purpose. I know what you’re saying, and yes, in a sense you’re right. But with Electra, I’d agree that God’s game plan [sic] includes a purpose for whoever is born. My BIRTH may be a chance occurrence, but my EXISTENCE is purposeful. That’s all I need.

---

and...

quote:

---

No problem at all. Like I said, my life has been uneventful enough to convince me my BIRTH was a chance occurrence [I mean, hey, why would God eternally predetermine THIS (i.e., ME), given what I have lived so far?] but eventful enough to convince me that my EXISTENCE has from the moment of my birth (conception even) been taken up lovingly into God’s purposes, no less lovingly and purposefully than if my birth HAD been eternally and specifically destined by God.

---

What I'm hearing you say is that you make the choice to appropriate God's purposes for Creation to your own personal meaning. And in so doing, you kind of retroactively interpret your life's events as being evidence of your being "appropriated" by God, so to speak. Hey, I think that's cool. Really cool. But I think that this may not work for some believers, honestly. Indeed, an infinitely intelligent God may have purposes for a POTENTIAL human being who may or may not come into existence...and even the intention to love ALL human beings who may come into existence. But, this is not the same as saying that God PURPOSED a certain human being to exist. Some people really like the idea that they were not a chance occurance in ANY sense, but that they are on a type of divine mission to be here for which only THEY could suffice. OVT doesn't seem to really allow for that. I don't know about you, but I think this line of thinking exists out there a lot.



***********************************

Tom said:

quote:

---

Mephi: I wonder how they would feel to believe that Jesus probably did NOT see THEM (meaning the individual person) in mind when he went to the Cross. How many times have you heard the old "Yep, Jesus saw ME on that Cross and died for ME on that Cross...little old ME." thing?

Tom: Well now I don’t know about this. I should think that a God of infinite intelligence could not but help to have me on his mind when he suffered. And that he would suffer for those he knew might be born (which in my view is everybody without exception), it enhances it. I’m MORE awestruck that Jesus would die for even the possible sins that could have been but were not committed.

---

Hmmm...let's look at this. As I'm seeing it, you are saying that the idea of a POTENTIAL particular human (with all it's dimensions of particularity) that exists in the mind of the infinitely intelligent God constitutes a legitimate object for God's love and personal affection? How can a POSSIBILITY, not an actuality, function in that capacity? How can this in any sense be considered a PERSONAL activity? God would merely be relating with the IDEA of you and your sins in God's mind, not the actual YOU. At least with some forms of Calvinism and Arminianism, there seems to be an objective referent for God's knowledge of the REAL you. In short, with OVT, God wouldn't have had "you" on his mind in the Cross event, but ALL POSSIBLE VERSIONS of you that could happen. How is this truly personal in the since that many people mean it to be?

And I suppose this raises another question. Did Jesus die for POSSIBLE sins that MAY or MAY NOT be committed by POSSIBLE human beings who MAY or MAY NOT exist? This is not the same as Jesus dying for "my" PERSONAL sins, is it?


***********************************

Tom said:

quote:

---

Mephi: Two problems [with "selective compatibilism"]: 1) It would seem that for God to determine that a SPECIFIC person (including genetic makeup) WOULD exist in the future...

Tom: I don’t see any evidence that God has ever so determined the existence of someone.

---

Just curious. What evidence would be useful in supporting this idea to you?



***********************************

Tom:

quote:

---

Sooo good to talk to ya Bro. I will hopefully see you this Fall. Most definitely looking forward to the POSSIBILITY! And hey, even though our meeting is only a POSSIBILITY, I still have emotions about it, can conceive of purposes I'd like our meeting to accomplish, and, yes, I’d even suffer some NOW to provide for the fulfillment of the purpose SHOULD we meet.

---

Man, this really means a lot, Tom. I was telling Modes the other day that I'm expecting some big things for the future. Meeting you face to face would DEFINITELY be one of those! It's great to talk to you, too, man. Hug the fam for me.


Holla,


"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

quote:

---

But remember how OVTers talk about 1) The nature of infinity: it cannot be subtracted from or “diluted” in any way; 2) The nature of Love: it must always be concrete/particular. God’s love and attention is applied to each individual person as if they were the only recipient of this love. So if you exist, you automatically have this going for you. YOU are the lost sheep; YOU are the lost coin; YOU are the lost son (the nature of love makes this possible). If you grumble at the fact that this is as true for everyone else as it is for you (the nature of infinity makes this possible), the you become like the older brother who complained instead of celebrated when the lost son was found.

---

Ok. Perhaps I'm not being as clear as I should. What I mean is this. I don't see how, given the tenets of OVT, POTENTIAL human beings that exist ONLY as just possibilities (NOT CERTAINTIES or even INTENTIONS) in the mind of God can constitute legitimate objects for any type of PERSONAL loving relationality with God. God would not be loving a person, but an IDEA of a person. Actually, God would be loving an POSSIBLE INSTANCE of persons that could be created. Moreover, it seems to me that God's covenental action would have to be anything BUT particular in this regard. God did NOT covenant to love Dwayne Polk, George Bush Jr., or David Hasselhoff. God covenanted to love WHOSOEVER would happen to come into existence. To be sure, the infinitely intelligent God could know WHAT things that loving Dwayne Polk, George Bush Jr., or David Hasselhoff could entail for God IF they did turn out to exist...but this is not the same thing as covenanting to love us three as real beings. See what I mean?


***********************************

Electra:

quote:

---

I wonder if this objection limits God’s creativity. Does selective compatibilism require exhaustive determination of everything (e.g. particular genes, etc.) about a person? Or, for each purpose that God wants to determine, is there a range of DNA/ancestral history that God could use to bring this purpose about? Let’s say God determined that the prophet Balaam should be confronted by his donkey when he kicked it. But donkeys do not have the necessary neurons for speaking Hebrew to renegade Ancient Near Eastern prophets. Shouldn’t God be able to make a donkey speak Hebrew without exhaustively determining the evolution of donkeys in general, and the genetic makeup of that particular donkey? OK, that was a lame example, but do you follow my quesiton?

---

I hear you wondering is this: is the case that selective compatibilism must entail determination on a genetic level? Can't it just be something like a name or certain RANGE of history? I would say yes, but we have to remember what my main thing was here. It deals with PARTICULAR persons who exist believing that their PARTICULAR existences were ordained by God. This inherently deals with things like genetic makeup, geography, etc. That's why I'm dealing with it here.


***********************************


Electra (emphasis mine):

quote:

---

Tom and Meph, I hear you on the "selective compatibilism: thing. I think that this approach may be helpful when applied to non-eternally-settled events, but not individual people--with the possible exception of Christ, if I understand Doc’s christology correctly.

---

Ah! I'm glad you brought that up. This is what I was keeping in the back of my mind. We discussed this at length a long time ago. About Jesus's existence fitting RIGHT into the selective compatibilism thing. As I recall, Doc did say this about Jesus. Right, Doc?


Holla,


"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

quote:

---

Laika: I don't see a need for God to bring specific people into existence (other than His son) but I do see specific assignments He wants accomplished. So when the time comes, He assigns mother-hood of His son to a specific woman. When He wants the gospel taken to the Gentiles, He assigns this to a specific expert of the Jewish Law.

Doc: Totally agree – so long as you allow for the possibility that the person will REJECT the divine assignment, at least insofar as the assignments involve morally responsible free will.

---

Oh yeah. It's up to us to choose to participate with Him. What a simple obedience Mary had and what an honor she received.





I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing.

quote:

---

How do you feel about the fact that God may not have known that you would ever be born? This was the first thing that occurred to me when confronted with the "open view" (i.e., wasn't I created by God for a purpose?) Regardless of what influence God might exert on the biological / genetic process, under the open view I owe my existence in large part to a long series of reproductive choices made by my many (free) ancestors. However, I think that the "God knows all possibilities" hypothesis resolved my initial existential angst. God (from eternity) knew me (perfectly) as a possibility. The fun thing is that you can now imagine God literally taking delight in the conception and birth of a child (i.e., the possible becoming actual) even more so than the parents. The birth of this child opens up a whole new set of possibilities for God in terms of relationship and vocation to God.

---

quote:

---

But that I was floating around since the creation of the world waiting to land into this specific body in 1960? Don't think so.

---