 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/21/2003 11:53 AM (GMT -6) |   | This is based on the questions that Electra brought up on the thread “Greater good vs. Unsurpassable Worth. Some questions for Meph Man. I wish you would respond to these “Definition Boy.”  Electra says:
quote:
“For example, although the suffering of Zosia was against God’s will…”
If God can work unilaterally to save the queen as even the open view would admit, then why is there evil IN THE FIRST PLACE? While, God working unilaterally and thereby sacrificing a rook to save the queen is permissible as things are at present, it doesn’t explain how things started out BEFORE the beginning. As a matter of fact, if God can work unilaterally in the present, then why is there evil now? Sure you may say, “God has a greater good purpose” and Greg may say, “creational factors” (of which you agree with), I don’t see how Greg’s irrevocable freewill/love position is off as far as PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING is concerned (not to mention the present). Part of the creational factors are that God has made reality in such a way that that he CANNOT “take back” or “reverse the order” of the way things are in order that evil might not reign. Of course you may say, “Well if God has created the world to be such that he “makes the rules” then he REALLY is responsible for evil. Would I be correct in assuming this of you?
Second, another major tenet in OT is that God “responds to his creation.” This seems to work against immutability. And…
Third, as Greg has mentioned, it seems to say that there is NO blueprint. And…
Fourth, what does it say about EDF?
I know you have been over this a million times before, but can you go over it ONE MORE TIME?
Greg, I would be happy to hear from you too. Or anyone else.
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
 |
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/21/2003 7:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey there, I'm not an OV'er, but i think all your objections have been argued by myself and others here. I've said that by virtue of the fact of God choosing the rules by which to operate the universe, relationships with humanity, salvation, etc., right there he has already determined things to a major extent.
I'll allow others to step in, but i think you raise good points. :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/22/2003 1:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
quote:
If God can work unilaterally to save the queen as even the open view would admit, then why is there evil IN THE FIRST PLACE? While, God working unilaterally and thereby sacrificing a rook to save the queen is permissible as things are at present, it doesn’t explain how things started out BEFORE the beginning. As a matter of fact, if God can work unilaterally in the present, then why is there evil now? Sure you may say, “God has a greater good purpose” and Greg may say, “creational factors” (of which you agree with), I don’t see how Greg’s irrevocable freewill/love position is off as far as PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING is concerned (not to mention the present). Part of the creational factors are that God has made reality in such a way that that he CANNOT “take back” or “reverse the order” of the way things are in order that evil might not reign. Of course you may say, “Well if God has created the world to be such that he “makes the rules” then he REALLY is responsible for evil. Would I be correct in assuming this of you?
First of all, I believe that the emergence of sin was an inevitability. It would be NAIVELY optimistic of God to truly wish to create a Creation full of free willed beings and truly expect NO ONE to sin. Evil comes from sin. There you have it. That’s why there’s evil in the first place. So, yes, God would be ultimately responsible for the EXISTENCE of evil, insofar as God had the intention of creating a reality of free willed beings with proportionate ability to influence reality.
As far as why there is evil now, rather than God just IMMEDIATELY cleaning it all up? Same answer as above. TWT 1-4.
*****************************
Brandon:
quote:
Second, another major tenet in OT is that God “responds to his creation.” This seems to work against immutability.
What is important is immutability of all that makes God’s ESSENTIALLY God. Which would be God’s character and infinite qualities (ie omnipresence, omniscience, etc) Saying that God RESPONDS to things doesn’t diminish these things.
*******************************
Brandon:
quote:
Third, as Greg has mentioned, it seems to say that there is NO blueprint.
There is no EXHAUSTIVELY DETAILED blueprint that is followed DETERMINISTICALLY. There is a blueprint of God’s intentions for Creation and self-limitations for Godself that is followed, wherein “ad-libbing” is possible.
*********************************
Brandon:
quote:
Fourth, what does it say about EDF?
It says that Exhaustive DEFINITE Foreknowledge is not possible. But this doesn’t mean that
1) compatibilism of some type doesn’t exist in reality
2) some things can’t be foreordained from Creation’s foundation
3) God is not significantly behind some “evil” (NOTICE THE QUOTES) events insofar as they are genuine attempts at “sacrificing the rook for the queen” events.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/23/2003 7:54 AM (GMT -6) | | First, RD, good stuff. Tell me more, I’d be interested in hearing it from you.
Meph Man said:
quote:
First of all, I believe that the emergence of sin was an inevitability. It would be NAIVELY optimistic of God to truly wish to create a Creation full of free willed beings and truly expect NO ONE to sin. Evil comes from sin. There you have it. That’s why there’s evil in the first place. So, yes, God would be ultimately responsible for the EXISTENCE of evil, insofar as God had the intention of creating a reality of free willed beings with proportionate ability to influence reality.
As far as why there is evil now, rather than God just IMMEDIATELY cleaning it all up? Same answer as above. TWT 1-4.
Hey, that’s pretty cool. You responded to my question in like…FIVE sentences!  OK. Next question. You say that it was INEVITABLE that man would sin. In other words, God created “this reality” or as RD says, God “choosing the rules by which to operate the universe” (so that there was the possibility that?) KNOWING humankind (SOMEONE) WILL sin. But then, why would God create KNOWING the outcome? Not only will man sin, but he will spend an ETERNITY away from Him? Doesn’t this also imply that God HAD TO CREATE the world this way? In other words, there were no other options? I mean, it seems rather foolish (as foolish as supposing God to be naively optimistic) for God to take this kinda chance don’t ya think? Still, God, because he has the ability to unilaterally involve Himself in the world (and does so on occasion-- doesn’t Polkinghorne hold that God never has to cause someone to go against their freewill, therefore, God never needs to act unilaterally?) he still could have it that sin need not occur.
quote:
What is important is immutability of all that makes God’s ESSENTIALLY God. Which would be God’s character and infinite qualities (ie omnipresence, omniscience, etc) Saying that God RESPONDS to things doesn’t diminish these things.
Cool. I understand that. But hasn’t immutability that OT’s have had a problem with been that God is immutable in EVERY respect? Take for instance, impassibility. If God responds to us, then that means that he can be AFFECTED by us. Yet, impassibility says that God cannot be affected by us in ANY WAY.
quote:
There is no EXHAUSTIVELY DETAILED blueprint that is followed DETERMINISTICALLY. There is a blueprint of God’s intentions for Creation and self-limitations for Godself that is followed, wherein “ad-libbing” is possible.
Chaos theory right? I agree. However, again, hasn’t the OT reaction been against that which is a deterministically exhaustive detailed blueprint? That’s what I gather out of OT’s writings. It seems to me that with a God that is totally impassible and has “worked out every minute” detail, we have this kinda stoic God. It seems as if those who have held to the classical view were caught with their pants down in this regard.
I like how you put it that in some cases, God is “ad-libbing.” I’m thinking about this in terms of:
quote:
Now, remember. We’ve already said LONG AGO that the whole Zosia thing MAY be a possible “sacrificing the rook for the queen” episode. And that’s all that matters. I said this before: The warfare worldview theodicy only allows for us to say that NOT ALL episodes of evil fit into a “greater good” mode. But SOME may.
What say ye?
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:56 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|