Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

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

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 7/9/2003 5:10 PM (GMT -6)

Well, is it?

"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 7/10/2003 3:27 AM (GMT -6)

By necessary, do you mean God just has to love; there's no choice. Or do you mean by necessary that love is part of the essence of who God is, thus, philosophically speaking, God necessarlily loves?

Starkman

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 7/10/2003 1:02 PM (GMT -6)

I mean necessary as in couldn't do otherwise.

"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 7/10/2003 1:16 PM (GMT -6)

Yes! That's part of what being God is. You can't have evil without a frame of reference, so evil can't exist "necessarily." And dualism is out--the idea that both good and evil can similtaneously exist side by side; evil is subordinate by what I just stated above.

Hope that helps some,

Starkman

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 7/10/2003 1:48 PM (GMT -6)

Actually, I see evil as a requisite for good. If we didn't have the choice for evil, then I don't believe our free will is genuine. But I would say since God is love God cannot be evil because it would contradict God's character. Let me know if I misunderstood what you said.

Peace

"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 7/10/2003 5:26 PM (GMT -6)

Let's re-arrange your post: I'll put the last part first and the first part last. Here's how it will read ...

But I would say since God is love God cannot be evil because it would contradict God's character. Let me know if I misunderstood what you said. Actually, I see evil as a requisite for good. If we didn't have the choice for evil, then I don't believe our free will is genuine.

Do you see the inconsistancy (man, I can't spell!) in the logic? Evil can't be a requisit for good if God is only love; for God has no evil in Him and no evil has to exist with Him in order for Him to be God. Now, what we can say is that the requirement for evil to come into existence is requisit for free choice to exist, however, evil itself cannot be in existence without good; that is, you can't have evil in existence without being able to point to something (good) as a reference point to compare the evil with. However, you can have good exist without something evil in existence at the same time or ever having been in existence (like God); that is, you don't have to have evil around as a reference to compare good with.

Rats, I have to go. The rest of the family is insisting that I take a shower; it is Thursday, you know!

Starkman

rossfadeinout
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428

Posted 7/11/2003 5:38 AM (GMT -6)

Good discussion... Lets keep it going.

The basics as I see them...

1. If the possibility of doing evil is required for a choice to be free (as A Theist has claimed) then we are faced with the dilemma of either
A) God not being free, because God cannot not love OR
B) God being able to do evil (which goes against the orthodox position as well as comon sense)

2. If God has free will, as well as Love as his essence while also not being able to do evil-- then why can't the same be true for humanity (having free will but not being able to do evil)?

Here is what Doc says is one of the six main theses of the Trinitarian Warfare Worldview...

quote:
1. Love Requires Freedom | By definition, love must be freely chosen. We are able to program computers to obey our commands perfectly, but we don’t consider them “loving.” They lack the capacity for love because they have no choice but to do what we say. Humans would be in the same category as computers if God merely “programmed” our actions. In order for creatures to be loving, they must have the freedom to do otherwise.

So what is it the differentates God's freedom not requiring the ability to do evil from our freedom which does require the ability to do evil?

Ross

"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 7/11/2003 1:30 PM (GMT -6)

I believe God chooses to love, always has done so, and His character is completely set so as to never change. However, I do not think it helpful to conceive of God's character as automatic per se. If it were automatic, it would not be true love. Love must be chosen.

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

rossfadeinout
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428

Posted 7/11/2003 3:42 PM (GMT -6)

John, thanks for the response, but I have a couple of questions...

1. If you say that God chooses to love, was there a time before he chose to love. If we believe that God has eternally existed in Trinity (which I think that we all would) then was there a time where the Father had to choose to love the Son and the Holy Spirit?

2. Could God have chosen at the beginning of his character setting to not be loving? Why did he choose to act loving? Was this choice capricious? If not, what was it that made love the right choice?

I'm going on a two sentence statement that you made so I would appreciate a little more clarification...

Lets keep it going!
Ross

"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 7/11/2003 5:40 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
1. If you say that God chooses to love, was there a time before he chose to love?

I think my answer would be "no," in that as I said, He has always chosen to be loving. Just as Adam & Eve chose to obey God prior to the fall and could have persisted in choosing to love (obey) God, even so God has never once chosen evil over good.

Moral character must always be predicated upon moral agency (freedom of moral choice). There is nothing natural about sin (or, what is the same thing, choosing not to love). God has simply always chosen to be holy, righteous, and loving. (It is important here to distinguish between God's moral attributes and God's natural attributes, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence).

quote:

2. Could God have chosen at the beginning of his character setting to not be loving?

Logically, yes; morally, no. But I'm not sure what you mean by "character setting." If you mean God's character has changed or even grown, then I would not agree. God has always chosen to love and will always do so, just as He has always existed. He needed no time to "develop" His character; it never was fallen character, like ours.

quote:
Why did he choose to act loving? Was this choice capricious? If not, what was it that made love the right choice?

As Charles Finney observes in his Systematic Theology, the moral law of God is what is known of as disinterested benevolence; that is, selfless goodwill towards all. Otherwise stated in the Two Greatest Commandments as loving God supremely and one's neighbor as one self. This is the moral law, not that it is superior to God, but that is the highest good of all. God perfectly knows it as such as acts in accordance with it. He always chooses the good because it is the best for everyone.

This moral law God has always "obeyed" in the sense that He has never chosen to be unloving; that is, He has never chosen to NOT act in accordance with the highest good of the universe of moral creatures. Because of his infinite wisdom, He is unable to even be tempted with sin, for He of all persons knows what the highest good would be in any and every situation. Therefore, though He certainly possesses free moral agency (of free will), He has never and will never misuse this power for selfish ends.

The following is an excerpt from Jed Smock's article, "Is God Good by Nature or by Choice?"

(Begin Quote)

We are asked the old query, "Is the good good because God wills it?" or, "Does God will it because it is good." Answer: God wills it because it is good. Our consciences tell us the good is good regardless of God's will. We know it is wrong to commit adultery, whether God says it is wrong or not. The laws of our nature also affirm that we should love our neighbor as ourselves, and keep the Golden Rule. It is only intelligent that men and God should live lovingly for the sake of universal happiness. God is not arbitrary in any of His commandments, nor does He require of man any more or less than He willingly performs: "Be ye holy, for I am holy." If God can't help but be good, then He has asked more from man than from Himself. God does good, not because He has to, but because it is the right and reasonable thing to do. It promotes the highest well-being of all and works to prevent the misery of all.

If God is not free to do good or evil then God is not responsible or accountable. Many view the Sovereign God as being accountable or responsible to no one and without any control. Surely the God of the Bible exerts self-control in the light of His law which is the expression of His heart. Although God is by nature independent, when He created the universe He became accountable and responsible to His creatures. Now His happiness is to a large degree dependent on their loving response to His overtures of love. What? Create dependent beings, and then not acknowledge any responsibly or accountability for their well-being? No, not the God of the Bible! "O my people, what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wearied thee? testify against me." (Micah 6:3) Here we have the great God humbling Himself before His creatures, asking them to judge Him. But how could men judge Him, if there is no standard to which even God is accountable?

Abraham in interceding for Sodom and Gomorrah pleaded with God not to destroy the righteous with the wicked, and boldly questioned the Almighty, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen. 18:25) It is apparent that our father Abraham believed that there was a moral standard in the nature of things to which even God was accountable.

God is under no compulsion to love and show mercy towards man. God freely gave His Son for our salvation, and Jesus laid down his life willingly. God is under a moral obligation to be just to all, but He has no obligation to show mercy to any, because all men deserve hell for all have sinned. There is nothing innate in God causing Him to behave morally for He is the causeless Cause or the First Cause. There is no natural necessity within God coercing Him to be just, merciful and longsuffering. When God was determined to destroy the rebellious nation of Israel, Moses reasoned with God and succeeded in changing His mind. (Exodus 32) God would have been just in demonstrating His wrath, but He choose to extend mercy. God is a free being who has always behaved lovingly, and who, Scripture confirms, will always act lovingly because this is the way He chooses to be.

God made man in His own image and likeness, not with the same physical powers, but with the same moral potential as Himself. Man, like God, has intellect, including conscience, emotion and free will. God created man in order that He might have a loving and personal relationship with beings in His own image. We intuitively know that we have these faculties, therefore we can conclude, as the Bible also affirms, that God must have these faculties. I am conscious of making choices independently of any outside or inside causation. To speak of being caused to choose is an obvious contradiction, an oxymoron. Reasonable men universally recognize the value of freedom, at least for themselves. Men are conscious of their freedom to choose; therefore, since God is infinitely greater than man, to refuse to acknowledge his freedom of conscience and choice, yes, even potential to do wrong, is demeaning to His greatness. God could choose to have His will always done on earth in the affairs of men, but to do so He would have to divest man of his freedom. Theologians who deny God's freedom naturally deny man's; therefore, they debase man to the level of, at best, a slave or, at worst, a brute.

Virtue can only exist where there is freedom. If man has a free will, and God doesn't, then man has something of value that God doesn't have. If God couldn't do anything but good and man could, wouldn't man in doing good be more righteous than God? If God is not free to do moral evil, then God is not a Holy Being, but an irresistible impersonal force or power, who absolutely and arbitrarily controls everything and everybody.

When the Bible speaks of God as immutable, in the moral sense, it means that God refuses to change His character. God has always chosen to be motivated by benevolence in everything that He has done without any lapses into selfishness. By His own choice, God is too wise to make mistakes, too good and just to do us wrong, too loving to ignore our interests or needs. His character is unchanging; but His feeling and actions will make adjustments to the changing characters of men. The man who is righteous today may be wicked tomorrow, and therefore God's emotions and relationship to him must change or He would not be just.

Entire article may be found at:

http://www.biblical-theology.com/freewill/godgood.htm

The following two articles are on the same theme of God's freedom to choose, and how we can be assured that He will forever choose good rather than evil:

http://www.biblical-theology.com/freewill/goodness.htm

http://www.biblical-theology.com/freewill/assurnce.htm

Hope this helps. Feel free to ask any further questions of me. I believe most of your questions will be addressed quite thoroughly in the above-linked articles.

Be blessed,

John

P.S.: If moral character in God is not voluntary, then God expresses a sheer impossibility when He commands his people, "be holy for I am holy."

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 07/11/2003 10:45:47 PM

Edited by - John Earp on 07/12/2003 01:07:32 AM

rossfadeinout
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428

Posted 7/12/2003 10:44 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks John... Good stuff. I hope to take some time and reflect on this subject a little more as well as read the articles posted.

Ross

"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:16 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