quote:

---

My REAL answer is a quote from John Piper:

The answer given by Calvinists is that the greater value is the manifestation of the full range of God's glory in wrath and mercy (Romans 9:22-23) and the humbling of man so that he enjoys giving all credit to God for his salvation (1 Corinthians 1:29)."

---

"he enjoys giving all credit to God for his salvation" for those who are saved. And those who are chosen to be damned enjoy giving God all the credit and glory for their damnation.




Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?

Edited by - Laika on 05/13/2003 2:09:50 PM

quote:

---

Can you directly say that God WOULDN'T be satisfied with God's own little puppet show, if I may use the caricature? No, you can't. What God calls love IS love...regardless of what you or I would think about it. Right?

---

quote:

---

If this is all a sadistic puppet show, then God is no God of love---at least any love that we have been taught by Scripture to recognize. If God's love is a concept completely foreign to the concept of love that he expresses in Scripture, then he is misrepresenting himself to us.

---

I would disagree here. If this was the "puppet" show, God WOULD be a God of love...and hate...and health...and sickness. Basically everything that we experience would be part and parcel of what God wills for things to be. It would most certainly encompass the idea of a loving God who shows mercy on who God wills...and who directs things as God so chooses.

Exodus 4:11
The LORD said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD?



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


RD:

quote:

---

But that's the thing - if you do base your beliefs upon both the Old and New Testaments, you'll see that although it's true, we can't say DEFINITELY what God wanted in the matter, it seems that the majority of scripture supports the assertion that creation was made for God's glory.

This also goes along w/ the traditional definition of God as being omnipotent, omniscient, etc. He doesn't NEED anything as a person "needs" love - (which is arguable b/c a human needs only food and water to survive). It couldn't have been the case that he needed to create companions for himself b/c he was "unwhole" or "needy" or whatever. If all powerful, and the all in all- he made Creatures to glorify him.

---

I hear your thought. There is a way that OVT may accomodate this idea that we hammered out here a while ago. Called the "GLORIFICATION IDEA" or the "GLORY VARIABLE" That was quite a discussion spanning months, as I recall. If you run a search, you can probably find the discussions. VERY good stuff. Check it out.


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

The "God of Love" idea doesn't EXCLUDE theological determinism unless narrowly defined. Just like the "God's Glory" thing doesn't exlude open view theism unless narrowly defined.

Just a thought.



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

quote:

---

Theological determinism denies the power of love and goodness.

---

quote:

---

All I posted was a simple statement: If determinism is true, there is one power, God’s will, bringing all things (thoughts, reactions, responses, feelings, etc.) to pass, in which case love and goodness are no more "powerful" or "influential" in the world than lust, greed, gravity, or drool, for nothing (from love to drool) exerts any influence or force in the world other than that specifically determined for it by God.

---

and...

quote:

---

Now, I didn’t say creating such a world was not possible for God. What I was saying was that creating an exhaustively determined world in which love and goodness are themselves greater forces than evil was not possible for God.

---

This is what I'm hearing you say. If theological determinism is true, then love (just like human choice) doesn't have influence at the highest metaphysical level IN ITSELF. The only "influence" that it would have would be secondary to God's ultimate willing. Moreover, because of this, it is not possible to say that love IN ITSELF is greater than hate, greed, etc...for they all have the same ultimate grounding in God's willing.

I disagree, Tom. This is because there is a type of theological determinism that one could hold to (The Nevillian type) that would grant SIGNIFICANT influence and metaphysical autonomy to things such that love COULD be said to be "greater" than hate. It's a logically plausible view and quite workable, IMHO. I'll have to find the thread where Doc and I discussed it.


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

Tom:

quote:

---

Oh, you also would agree, would you not, then, that whether or not the world is exhaustively determined, it remains true that those who believe the world is exhaustively determined by God’s will alone ought logically to deny any confidence in the power of love as love?

---

No way. Again, one can definitely affirm a type of theological determinism that allows for the power of love AS love. Yep.\

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

Tom:

quote:

---

There are two options here that seem to be open (no pun intended) for determinists.

1) I could believe God unconditionally determined all things and be honest about the implications this has, one of which would be denying the superiority of love and goodness in the world, and actually try to live like this, or

2) I could believe God unconditionally determined all things but also determined that believing it possible to live consistently with this fact should be existentially impossible for us. In other words, God determines us exhaustively but wires us existentially for something else.

---

3) I could believe that God created a world where all things proceed as God has planned from eternity, AND where things proceed in an "open" manner FOR ANY SENTIENT CREATIONS THAT EXIST.

Again, it IS possible.


Peace, my brother,


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

quote:

---

Icon: I can't think of any scientists who would say that quantum physics HASN'T ruled out determinism.

---

quote:

---

Technical skill is mastery of complexity while creativity is mastery of simplicity. - Chris Zeeman

---

quote:

---

OK. You're still not really disagreeing. You seem to be agreeing that what I'm saying applies to NON-Neviliian determinists.

---

Sure, I can go with that. Just as long as we understand that theological determinism per se is not the problem. Just certain TYPES of it.


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

Tom:

quote:

---

Your (3) is identical to my (2). There's no difference. I mean, your (3) is what I wanted to say with my (2). God determines that things procede "in an open manner" for us but they are determined for him. Again, this is a world of appearances. Reality is what GOD thinks it is, not you or me. He's got the infallible view on things. So if God thinks a thing is determined, it's determined, period. My sense of libertarian free will is simply illusionary if God doesn't believe I'm capable of doing other than I do. If Nevillian determinism can avoid this, I'd like ot know how.

---

I think your main problem is that divine/creation RECIPROCAL relationships would be illusionary to God, in that Creation WOULD be influencing God...but only in the direction that God himself wanted to go anyway. I really don't see a problem with this. The sense of libertarian freedom that has YOU affecting God by YOUR action or inaction would still be there. The urgency for prayer. The need for personal responsibility. Spiritual warfare. Even your personal FELT relationship with God. All that would still exist for you. What would essentially change?

Maybe it's been too long. Explain to me the main problem with being a theological determinist again?




PS: You know, there is this interesting essay that I've seen written about The Matrix that may be really cool here. From what I recall, it dealt with how one's perceptions (and interactions WITH those perceptions) essentially constitute one's true reality, not necessarily some purported higher knowledge of "what truly is" . This SOOOOO applies to this discussion, I think.

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