 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Craig/Talbott Discussion | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/19/2004 1:18 PM (GMT -6) |   | POW:
quote:
Meph, any thoughts stem from the other guy's presentation?
I currently don't have streaming capabilities, so I cannot hear Rev. Reardon's ideas. If you'd summarize for me, that'd be great.
Here's a prelim thougt though. Does it go somewhat along the lines of...
God respects freedom. At the end of this thing, when God's light and love encompasses everything, some people won't want to be with God...and so hell ends up being a PLACE/ATTITUDE that reflects such. In allowing people to be there, he is "giving them what they really want" out of love and "respect" (Kalomiros uses this thought too) for their creaturely free dignity?
God "letting us go our own way"?
If so, then I'd have the same problems. But I'll wait to see if it's the same idea.
----------------------
Jefscott:
quote:
Paul talks of sufferings that made the Thessalonians worthy or fitted to the kingdom of God. He also speaks of REIGNING with Christ if we SUFFER with Him. So, do UNbelievers suffer with Christ? The passages seem to imply that they do NOT.
Thus, even IF universalism is true, unbelievers would seem to have to wait until AFTER Christ's reigning with His brethren before they could be resurrected to Christ's presence. This, in turn, brings us right back to the problem of LONG periods of torment. So, IF universalism is true, an unconcious death (= the Second Death) following the ressurection unto judgement would make more sense of all the passages to me. This is the universalism held to by Lock and others. Counter objections?
Whoops. Didn't see it. Cool!
Let me see if I can get the crux of your argument here. Paul talks about suffering with Christ making one worthy to reign with Christ. Because unbelievers don't suffer with Christ, then they can't be worthy to reign with Christ. So, unbeliever have to reign AFTER Christ's reign. Ok.
Some of the scriptures I guess you are referring to would be in Romans 8, 2 Thessalonians 1, and 2 Timothy 2. And to Revelation with the second death idea.
Ok. Revelation. Wow. A doozie. We won't even go into the differences of interpretation with this bad boy. Let's just try to keep it simple.
Let's talk about the second death. The lake of fiery sulfer, right. Death, Hades, the devil and all the bad people are thrown into, right? In looking at different things, it seems to me that a common theme that could be pulled out is simply this: at the point of the ultimate judgement (and we don't know how long this is), everything not of God's kingdom will be done away with...eliminated. The final defeat of evil. Now, though all seem to be judged (Rev. 20), the only people that end up in this "eternal fire" are Death and Hades (which symbolize all effects of wickedness and sin) and all the "bad" persons (Satan, false prophet, the unfaithful, etc.) That makes since. The destruction of everything wicked. But this doesn't entail annihilation NOR does it entail UNENDING suffering...more than it entails that THESE CHARACTERS are going to be the ones to endure the pain of hellish existence, not those who have chosen God. Those who know God and have been faithful won't have to go through this. All the others will.
Moreover, I don't believe after the "second death" in Rev. 20 that there is an elapsed time on Jesus' reign. I don't see one. So, it is very possible that all that is being said is that those who embody God in this life, suffer for it, and remain true will reign with God IMMEDIATELY as these other characters have to roast, possibly for a long while! The author of Revelation makes a big deal that the faithful won't endure the second death. Why? Because they are WORTHY. They kept the faith and all. This seems consistent with what Paul was saying.
But none of this precludes the idea of evil beings enduring the "eternal fire" of God, being severely, painfully purged of all wickedness and evil, coming to enjoy Christ's reign too...but later, and with much ado.
See if this make sense to you. Those who choose God's way, suffer for it (as Paul's audience was), and maintain faithfulness will reign with Christ following the judgment without having to endure the second death. All other beings will. It will be during this judgement process that all effects of sin and wickedness will be eliminated by the eternal fire of God. All of this is consistent with the Scripture you reference...and affirms
--the final victory of God over sin, wickedness, and the Devil
--the faithful reigning with Christ following the judgement
--the total elimination of all of sin's effects.
--the existence of a very painful reckoning for the enemies of God
--the complete VICTORY over DEATH (all forms!)
...all while having universal reconciliation as a possiblity!
How about that? 
 | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/19/2004 1:27 PM (GMT -6) | | | Again, Jefscott. The problem that I have with annihilationism is simply that, if it's true, there wouldn't be a TRUE victory of death and the grave. If ANYTHING, it'd be FULL. Death will have won. Only in a universal reconcilation motif like we are describing here can death TRULY be eliminated...along with all other vestiges of sin and evil. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/19/2004 1:40 PM (GMT -6) | | SELAH
Where you at, girl? I'd LOOOOOVE to have your take on this. Holla back! (wit yo cute self  )
And anyone else, who'd like to speak up...please do so.
This is good iron-sharpening-iron, brain stimulatin' type stuff!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/19/2004 1:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph,
quote:
See if this make sense to you. Those who choose God's way, suffer for it (as Paul's audience was), and maintain faithfulness will reign with Christ following the judgment without having to endure the second death. All other beings will. It will be during this judgement process that all effects of sin and wickedness will be eliminated by the eternal fire of God. All of this is consistent with the Scripture you reference...and affirms
--the final victory of God over sin, wickedness, and the Devil
--the faithful reigning with Christ following the judgement
--the total elimination of all of sin's effects.
--the existence of a very painful reckoning for the enemies of God
--the complete VICTORY over DEATH (all forms!)
...all while having universal reconciliation as a possiblity!
It does make LOGICAL sense. I was alluding back to the problem of how long would a sentient being have to be tormented before he/she came to his/her senses. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus seems to suggest that it wouldn't take very long (BTW, I don't believe that the normal state of death even NOW is conscious - the parable discusses a special case, in my opinion).
Thus, if
1) the judgement of works for unbelievers is experienced in a living ressurected body, and
2) the second death is an unconscious sleep state brought on by casting them in the lake of fire AFTER their judgement/punishment,
universalism would be easier to defend given the psychological implausibility of a sentient being enduring torment without "repenting" for such a long time. Especially if you accept, as you seem to, the idea that there is an inevitability to universalism. For then, the George McDonald view of universalism makes sense. The non-elect just finally AWAKE to renewed LIFE after the co-reign of Christ's elect.
Personally, I don't see the problem with the annulling of DEATH referring to the end of mortality for those on the NEW EARTH. I'm just arguing for what I think would be the most plausible defense for universalism from a scriptural point of view.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/19/2004 2:09 PM (GMT -6) | | jefscott:quote:
It does make LOGICAL sense. I was alluding back to the problem of how long would a sentient being have to be tormented before he/she came to his/her senses. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus seems to suggest that it wouldn't take very long (BTW, I don't believe that the normal state of death even NOW is conscious - the parable discusses a special case, in my opinion).
Thus, if
1) the judgement of works for unbelievers is experienced in a living ressurected body, and
2) the second death is an unconscious sleep state brought on by casting them in the lake of fire AFTER their judgement/punishment,
universalism would be easier to defend given the psychological implausibility of a sentient being enduring torment without "repenting" for such a long time. Especially if you accept, as you seem to, the idea that there is an inevitability to universalism. For then, the George McDonald view of universalism makes sense. The non-elect just finally AWAKE to renewed LIFE after the co-reign of Christ's elect.
Personally, I don't see the problem with the annulling of DEATH referring to the end of mortality for those on the NEW EARTH. I'm just arguing for what I think would be the most plausible defense for universalism from a scriptural point of view.
Oh, I see where you're going now.
I don't see where this is necessary. Where does the length of time become an issue...and why does it become an issue. You could say that people may "come to the senses" and eventually make the right choices for God quite near the beginning of the "second death" judgement thing. That wouldn't cause any issues, would it? Remember, the main issue is that those who live in God's love and possibly suffer for it here, and remain faithful will be WORTHY to reign with Christ immediately without enduring the second death at all. That's the thing. Enduring the second death for ONE MINUTE would be more painful that we can imagine probably, right? How LONG a human has to be in the second death isn't an issue, I don't think. It only says that the devil and his demonic peoples would be tormented for eons upon eons, right?
Why is the time issue a factor? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/19/2004 2:12 PM (GMT -6) | | | About the Lazarus story. Just because Lazarus was ready to end the pain does NOT NECESSARILY mean that he was ready to LEAVE the situation! Only God would know that, right? Paradigmatically, aversion of pain doesn't necessarily EQUAL assimilation and internalization of truth. Process. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lomman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 14
| Posted 12/19/2004 5:13 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
About the Lazarus story. Just because Lazarus was ready to end the pain does NOT NECESSARILY mean that he was ready to LEAVE the situation! Only God would know that, right? Paradigmatically, aversion of pain doesn't necessarily EQUAL assimilation and internalization of truth. Process.
As jefscott pointed out, the rich man did seem to have a sincere concern for the well-being of his family and not just for himself, so I'm not sure if we can draw such conclusions from this parable - but of course, one could say that he should've been more concerned for their well-being while still alive. Still, the main point of the parable is, I think, that his family had all the divine revelation they needed to make their own decision, and a ghostly visit from their dead brother would not have made any difference. And it is a parable, after all, so we should be careful before formulating our doctrine on what hell will be like from this passage. If we took it literally it would sound kind of ridiculous anyway.
But I do agree with what you said - one's suffering is not an indicator of their heart's spiritual condition. I think it should also be noted that, for many universalists (from what I understand), hell is not just the means by which the impenitent will be finally brought to repentance, but is also a judgment that must be endured - a just punishment that must be reaped according to what was sown on earth. So, even if some did happen to repent as soon as they arrived doesn't mean that they wouldn't have to "serve their time," even if that meant enduring the pain of hell until the age(s) was complete (I'm not sure if that makes sense or not, or even if I agree with I'm saying; just tossing ideas around). Still, Jesus does seem to imply that some will have it worse than others (recall his words about some receiving few stripes while others receiving many), and will have to endure a more severe punishment, so perhaps those who have less to repent of, and who do so shortly after arriving, will not experience the same degree of pain as others (such as those who used their freedom in more evil and destructive ways). But contrary to the popular "Arminian" view of hell (again, the view of C.S. Lewis comes to mind), the one experiencing the judgment of "few stripes" would still want "out" as soon as possible! Of course, this is all mostly just speculation; I haven't spent much time studying this topic and have not yet come to any conclusions on this matter (But I am defintely reconsidering the universalist position).
Lomman
"He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to promote justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" Micah 6:8
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lomman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 14
| Posted 12/19/2004 5:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's some more food for thought from Talbott (The Inescapable Love of God, pg. 167) that I thought may be pertinent to this discussion:
"According to Augustine, God vindicates his righteousness by subjecting unrepentant souls to eternal torment; and though, as we have seen, such punishment does nothing to restore a just order, Augustine surely is right about one thing: At the very least, the ones responsible for terrible atrocities must learn a hard lesson; in particular, they must be made to appreciate the horror of their own actions. But the paradox is this: Only someone on the road to redemption, only a forgiven sinner, can fully appreciate the horror of even the most monstrous acts. So long as an Adolf Eichmann remains merely a monster, an irrational remnant of a person, nothing he might endure spitefully, like a tormented animal, will teach him the hard lesson we want him to learn. Do we not want him to reclaim enough of his humanity to admit that he was wrong and to appreciate why he was wrong? Do we not want his illusions stripped away, so he can stand naked before his Creator? Only when the light finally breaks into his darkened understanding, only when the divine forgiveness begins its work of transformation, will he begin to appreciate the meaning of his punishment and the true nature of his evil deeds; and then, of course, he will already be on the road to redemption."
"He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to promote justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" Micah 6:8
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/20/2004 9:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Yo friends-
Wow. I've been gone. Internet wireless stopped working days ago. Just got it fixed. So I haven't read anything from the top of page 2 onwards. I'll catch up! I probably should catch up before I post, but ah, what the hay, I'll go ahead and post what I wrote a few days ago and then catch up.
---------
Yo Yuniveralists-
I’ve been offline for a few days. Internet not working.
I have a further question on the nature of the freedom (if any) which people in hell possess. What about the solidification of the will that transpires in THIS life, before death? When Hitler entered hell, did he take with him the same free will he had while living? Is the Hitler that descends into hell the SAME Hitler that solidified himself in evil on earth? And does he from THAT context, then, interact with whatever loving offer God might make to him there?
If the solidification is erased by God by whatever means, then I’m really wondering in what sense the exercise of our will in this life on earth is really probationary at all? If we exercise it wisely in response to God we go to heaven. If we don’t, we still go to heaven, but we just fry some first. Is that it? This makes the whole “free will enterprise” not about determining one’s DESTINATION (everybody makes it) but about determining one’s ROUTE (some make it in directly from this earthly life, others make it in after suffering in hell for a while). But this seems to fly in the face of everything we’ve been arguing about regarding free will, especially about the fact that the whole libertarian enterprise really IS the ROUTE itself and that this route is required BY THE DESTINATION (personal loving relationship). But if LFW isn’t about the destination at all (if that’s determined for us by the sort of constitution God gave us), the free will is just about how pain-filled is the ROUTE we determine for ourselves.
So the probation on earthy is nothing more than an opportunity to meet an inevitable end without suffering in hell first. But if you have to suffer in hell, you make it eventually. So physically death isn’t the end of anything really. It doesn’t make a border before which we determine ourselves and after which we live with the consequences of that. Physical death is totally de-eschatologized. It doesn’t mean anything theologically. It’s just another turn in the road on the journey. But the journey is the same.
I’m not begrudging the kindness of God. If God did do universalism, I wouldn’t complain that God’s too generous. I really would rejoice with those who came home. My questions have to do with making sense of other claims held to simultaneously and which don’t seem to pan out on a universalist scheme. I’ve already mentioned the first, (1) libertarian free will. How does God hard-wire the constitution to make only right choices when under certain circumstances (like the extreme sort of agony hell brings, and the supposed total absence of all self-deception and illusion) while still leaving those choices libertarian (possession power to the contrary)?
My objections to this are two: (a) It seems self-contradictory—constitutionally hardwired libertarian choices? Just saying it confuses me—and (b) I question whether or not removing all the outward reasons an agent might have for rejecting God, destroying all the illusions that form the excuses for choosing sin in the first place, would really leave the agent with absolutely NO conceivable reason for rejecting God and so guarantee a right choice. Seems to me that libertarian free will IS its own reason. Affirming the will’s capacity to reject God forever would reveal evil for the irrational and intrinsically selfish sort of thing it is—choosing self when there IS no outward reason to do so, no fruit to choose because it’s good for making one wise or good for food, no babe to lust after, no money to accrue, no political position with which to crush the weak, nothing outward like that at all, but instead just because self is there, just because it CAN be done, just because there IS a self that can make its stand against God—for no other reason than that it can. In fact, precisely because there is no other reason than that it can. Now THAT is an evil thing.
But if such hardwiring IS true and universalism follows, then secondly I’m wondering what sense this makes secondly of (2) our present existence on earth. Doesn’t it de-eschatologize our earthly existence? Doesn’t it empty the open view claim that the finiteness of our freedom is evidenced NOW in this life by the fact that we can solidify ourselves? If going to hell wipes out whatever level of self-solidification an agent freely determines for herself during this life, then what’s the point of probabtionary life on earth? There really ARE no consequences for sin. I think I could more easily believe that the just fate of the damned is annihilation.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/20/2004 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
The ONLY WAY that I could get with this is to do like Creel and say that FREEDOM (or glorification, or whatever), but not LOVE, is the goal of all creation. That's the ONLY way it makes sense to me.
So it's all about your feelings and your sense of what love must be, eh, Meph?  (But seriously, don't we all do precisely this, assume the truth value of our own presuppositions?).
Most people (including myself, though I realize you have problems with parts of the TWT) don't see how love can be real without being freely chosen. So, rather than say that creation's purpose is freedom, I can say that creation's purpose is the Kingdom of God over all coming into full realization, the law of which is LOVE, which can only be real love if freely chosen.
In other words, freedom is a necessary corollary to love, which does not supercede love, but is simply a necessary component of love.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/20/2004 12:51 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE:
quote:
So it's all about your feelings and your sense of what love must be, eh, Meph?
Heh. Now when has it EVER been just about feelings and my own personal sense? You've been on this board long enough to know me better than that, now, haven't you? 
-----------------
JEE:
quote:
Most people (including myself, though I realize you have problems with parts of the TWT) don't see how love can be real without being freely chosen. So, rather than say that creation's purpose is freedom, I can say that creation's purpose is the Kingdom of God over all coming into full realization, the law of which is LOVE, which can only be real love if freely chosen.
Important point. Though I recognize some larger scale issues with TWT 1 that I have talked about before, I am willing to AFFIRM it here. You don't have to deny TWT 1 for universalism to be true. Just like I've said in this thread. All that has to be true for TWT 1 to obtain is that:
1) the act/emotion/decision of loving cannot be coerced, puppeteered, or programmed.
2) character solidification must be done by the AGENT, not any other factor.
NONE OF THAT is being denied. When an agent chooses God, THEY are the ones choosing. When an agent lives for or against God, THEY are doing it. When they are solidifying towards or against God, THEY are doing it.
You see that in the discussion, right? | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/20/2004 2:50 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
POW:
quote:
Meph, any thoughts stem from the other guy's presentation?
I currently don't have streaming capabilities, so I cannot hear Rev. Reardon's ideas. If you'd summarize for me, that'd be great.
Sorry, can't do that.
Nice knowing you, Meph.
- PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lomman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 14
| Posted 12/21/2004 4:24 AM (GMT -6) | | (This is in response to the article by James Webb that Tim posted under the problem of evil thread; I was going to respond there but I thought it'd be more appropriate here)
First of all, I reject the notion that Satan is simply God's puppet, and that everything Satan does is according to God's sovereign purpose. To me, that just blurs the line between good and evil, making God the author of sin and making the battle between good and evil a big fake.
However, if Talbott's understanding of free will is correct, then it seems as if we have no reason not to affirm the above as true. If any choice to reject God is by necessity a less than fully informed choice, that means God willingly withheld some necessary light from this angel (along with those who supposedly rebelled along with him), knowing good and well that it would create an ambiguous reality for him, thus clouding his perception and leading to his self-deceived choice to rebel against his false characterization of God.
For this reason, I cannot embrace Talbott's view of free will, which makes his universalism much less plausible to me.
Lomman
"He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to promote justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" Micah 6:8
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/21/2004 5:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Aw, Lomman. Stick wit me, man...
Lomman:
quote:
First of all, I reject the notion that Satan is simply God's puppet, and that everything Satan does is according to God's sovereign purpose. To me, that just blurs the line between good and evil, making God the author of sin and making the battle between good and evil a big fake.
Cool. Reject that.
---------------
Lomman:
quote:
However, if Talbott's understanding of free will is correct, then it seems as if we have no reason not to affirm the above as true. If any choice to reject God is by necessity a less than fully informed choice, that means God willingly withheld some necessary light from this angel (along with those who supposedly rebelled along with him), knowing good and well that it would create an ambiguous reality for him, thus clouding his perception and leading to his self-deceived choice to rebel against his false characterization of God.
Hey, wait a sec. Have you heard of the "soul-making theodicy" It's by John Hick (kinda originally from Irenaeus)...and even though I'd agree with Doc that it's a PARTIAL answer to the problem of evil, I'd also agree that it's an ESSENTIAL part of the answer. (Check Satan and the Problem of Evil!) Basically, one of the crucial points that Hick makes is that there must be epistemic distance for there to be actual freedom and ANY type of autonomy. This forms a space of existential ambiguity within which moral choices can be made. This existential ability makes it possible (though not NECESSARY) for us to deceive ourselves and be deceived. If God had created all of us with absolutely NO epistemic distance, no one would ever be able to make any rational, autonomous decisions. If God truly wanted a creation where love was in ANY WAY could be a rational, autonomous choice, he HAD to have some epistemic distance in place.
Talbott, I believe, assumes this understanding.
http://puffin.creighton.edu/eselk/God-Persons_website/Outlines_web-site/Theodicy_Hick-soulmaking.htm
So, don't throw things out yet, man!!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lomman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 14
| Posted 12/21/2004 9:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hey, wait a sec. Have you heard of the "soul-making theodicy" It's by John Hick (kinda originally from Irenaeus)...and even though I'd agree with Doc that it's a PARTIAL answer to the problem of evil, I'd also agree that it's an ESSENTIAL part of the answer. (Check Satan and the Problem of Evil!) Basically, one of the crucial points that Hick makes is that there must be epistemic distance for there to be actual freedom and ANY type of autonomy. This forms a space of existential ambiguity within which moral choices can be made. This existential ability makes it possible (though not NECESSARY) for us to deceive ourselves and be deceived. If God had created all of us with absolutely NO epistemic distance, no one would ever be able to make any rational, autonomous decisions. If God truly wanted a creation where love was in ANY WAY could be a rational, autonomous choice, he HAD to have some epistemic distance in place.
Talbott, I believe, assumes this understanding.
http://puffin.creighton.edu/eselk/God-Persons_website/Outlines_web-site/Theodicy_Hick-soulmaking.htm
So, don't throw things out yet, man!!
Thanks, Meph. I'd never heard of the "soul-making theodicy" before, and I have yet to read SATPOE. I vaguely remember reading something in Talbott's book about the limits God faced in creating free moral agents, and there having to be some distance and ambiguity for real freedom to exist. So it does kinda make sense. I guess I just jumped to conclusions a little too soon - I'm trying to be as skeptical as possible since this view doesn't seem to be very popular! But I'm still open to it. I guess I just need to think about it all some more...thanks again.
Lomman
"He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to promote justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" Micah 6:8
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/21/2004 2:36 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Meph: Hey, wait a sec. Have you heard of the "soul-making theodicy" It's by John Hick (kinda originally from Irenaeus)...and even though I'd agree with Doc that it's a PARTIAL answer to the problem of evil, I'd also agree that it's an ESSENTIAL part of the answer. (Check Satan and the Problem of Evil!) Basically, one of the crucial points that Hick makes is that there must be epistemic distance for there to be actual freedom and ANY type of autonomy. This forms a space of existential ambiguity within which moral choices can be made. This existential ability makes it possible (though not NECESSARY) for us to deceive ourselves and be deceived. If God had created all of us with absolutely NO epistemic distance, no one would ever be able to make any rational, autonomous decisions. If God truly wanted a creation where love was in ANY WAY could be a rational, autonomous choice, he HAD to have some epistemic distance in place.
Paul said Adam was NOT deceived in his transgression. How do we square that with the fact that without "epistemic distance, no one would ever be able to make any rational, autonomous decisions?" Apparently, Adam did NOT have to be deceived or deceive himself to autonomously sin and be accountable.
Even if you deny the actual existence of Adam, Paul at least seems to be METAPHORICALLY refuting the epistemic distance view stated above.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
| 72 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:39 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 |
|
|