Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/3/2006 7:38:38 PM (GMT-6)

First, Bishop Kalistos Ware likes to say that when it comes to "models" of the atonement, the expression "safely in numbers" comes to mind. He too likes to have several, as no one says it all, and several can be run with to far.

Second, it is interesting that the "first Adam" was created in the image of the "second Adam." Neat little twist!

Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/4/2006 11:09:30 AM (GMT-6)

OK, let me reword your original statement with what I think you're explanation is.

If God and other free creatures are the cause of another's bad situation, then that person can choose not to follow God (to sin), and will not be punished (if by "natural" processes).

If that's all you're saying, then I agree. But Christ says one day people will receive consequences for their sins if they don't repent during their life, right? That, to me, is the moral order. It means that they can not gratuitously (i.e., consequence-free) improve their lot at another's expense. If this were true, rational deliberation about moral action would be virtually impossible. No one could figure out how to maximize one's sentient satisfaction or even minimize one's sentient DISsatisfaction. 'Cause there would be no moral order.

There would be chaos if people could gratuitously improve their lot at another's expense. It would be worse than the animal world, because we would have no instincts designed to assure species balance. Desensitization would result in ever-increasing privation. Do you follow me? Do you see how reason grounded in sufficient moral axioms is all that can provide sufficient information for a LFW being to morally deliberate? This is what I mean by a moral order. It's the opposite of chaos and irrationality, which inevitably result in suffering. 

In short, the human mind can not morally deliberate rationally apart from knowing with some reasonable degree of certainty what the consequences of one's actions are. The atonement says God can freely justify us (i.e., it's free for us)because the lord of the order has absorbed the consequence for us. God is thus rendered just because He does not intervene abitrarily (by forgiving without consequences) in the radically non-arbitrary moral order He has created. He works within the system, so to speak, even though it is fallen. He doesn't change the ground rules just because we sin. He remains stedfast to the order (even the epistemological requirements of it) despite our sin.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/4/2006 2:58:37 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 11/5/2006 10:46:38 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/6/2006 6:19:23 AM (GMT-6)

Zach, my position would be that volitional contracting creates new obligation. It is not the only source of it. I don't even know what obligation means apart from consequences (if only privation). And if the world is not structured with consequences (either pre- or post-mortem) that guarantee that no one can gratuitously gain at another's expense, then I don't see why we would ever have the kind of confidence in humanity that would explain our motive to contract in the first place.

The way I see it is like this: God creates for His own pleasure. If His pleasure is attained by how we live, then God must make it pleasurable to us to pleasure Him, such that our delighting in His will delights Him.. So there must be consequences for living in a way that is less than pleasing to God. Otherwise God is an incompetent designer of a moral order.

1) God intends for us to pleasure Him

2) God is a competent designer such that He has arranged for 1); this entails:
    a) We both can please God and know sufficiently how to please Him
    b) We must be pleasured by pleasuring Him, else God is incompetent

3) 2b) entails that some degree of privation for us must result from diminishing God's pleasure, else God is incompetent 

4) 2a) entails that we can know that degree to a reasonable extent else we could never calculate consequences of our actions sufficiently (and all intelligent choice requires calculation of consequences); and consequences for us are known to relate to God's pleasure because of 2b)

5) Many people see justice--in the form of proportional consequences--as implied by 4) since there is no other clear way to infer how our privation will correspond quantitatively to God's teleological privation. And I think those people see a quantitative correspondence of human and divine privation as implied in God's competence. For if God makes it too difficult for us either i) to assess the quantitative consequences of our actions or ii) to perform what pleases Him, then either a) God is incompetent (as per process theism), or b) our lives are not related to God's pleasure after all.

This is why I think process theism (that species which denies post-mortem experience) is so weak from a moral perspective. It can't provide an incentive to sentiently-motivated, volitional creatures to do God's will in all cases. There will always be, per that view, cases where it is in the creature's rational interest to intentionally violate the golden rule. When a game is being played and everyone else is cheating, one would be a fool to forego cheating if the net consequences of cheating are quantitatively better.

Reason can not be at odds with morality in a competently designed moral order. This seems almost axiomatic to me if God is perfectly benevolent and competent. A process theism that posits no post-mortem experience for souls can account for a benevolent will of God, but not one for which the fulfillment thereof is competently provided for. To my mind, only the assurance that the creatures sentient interests coincide with the creator's can do this.

This, to me, is what grounds the rationality of justice. This, in turn, explains the rationality of the atonement. It is God's way of saying we were right all along to see consequences for acting contrary to God's interest as inevitable in an intelligible moral order. It's just that Christ can legitimately (i.e., justly) "absorb" them.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/11/2006 9:27:50 PM (GMT-6)

Zach: I disagree. Even if atonement and proportianl consequence works out, there are still people who have suffered injustice. That doesn't go away unless you have time travel. Punishing the offender does not make restitution for the victim. In fact restitution is never full, because time suffered cannot be changed into time enjoyed.

Jeff: True. But consequences and their certainty at least show that God was opposed to the gratuitous suffering and did what He could, given the constraints of His purposes, to prevent it.

Zach: I cannot demonstrate this any more than you can demonstrate your belief. But I believe that this is consistent with the actions and teachings of Jesus. (He was a prophet primarily to the covenant people; he talked about different punishments for the same crime based on state of mind, which is essentially all I am arguing for.)

Jeff: I don't see why state of mind would not be a basis for distinction in consequences for non-covenant people. Accountability, as I understand it, always presupposes some capacity to understand the consequences of one's actions. So I don't see how you're not arguing for more than that.

Zach: I disagree. He can be fully interested in (and loving toward) them, without enslaving them. Enslavement is not a requirement for love or interest. In fact the opposite is true: freedom is a requirement for real love and genuine interest.

Jeff: Humans can love this way. But if God loves utterly unconditionally as it seems you're arguing, why does He design the universe to where sin leads to death, and why does He require repentance for forgiveness? Even you don't believe in totally unconditional love on the part of God.

I simply say that the conditionality is grounded in the fact that sentient beings love that which is sentiently satisfying to them. That's why God will not allow even us to sin forever. He must eventually make us holy if He is going to keep us in His presence. The probation period must be finite. What else do you see as explaining the conditionality of God's expressed benevolence?

Zach: I do not believe that lack of slaveholder status implies lack of interest in the potential slave. Take romantic love. Romantic love does not require that the lover force the lover to return loving feelings on pain of death. In fact we would say this "lover" has objectified his "beloved." He has failed to consider the beloved as a free chooser, and because of this, it cannot be love at all.

Jeff: I think you have a point with romantic love. But romantic love is probably the most irrational of all. But even it is grounded in the sentient satisfaction the beloved arouses in the lover. As soon as that sentient satisfaction can not be aroused thus, romantic love dies. It takes something more rational to keep the relationship going thereafter.

Zach: Not only does that, but God withholds justice from the suffering. These are pertinent, because atonement and consequence do nothing to resolve this situtation. We can all sit in heaven, blissful, and recount those days when the almighty God chose to let us suffer despite our pleas for help. Those days will have happened regardless of atonement. No atonement short of time travel changes this suffering. The injustices and sufferings of today MATTER. Something real and significant is lost, never to be regained. Job's original children stayed dead, and the pain they felt when the building caved in still really happened. Preventing future suffering is good, but it doesn't justify present injustices.

Jeff: You're exactly right. It is because of this that I say that Christ's glorification is the primary purpose of creation--or to put it another way, Christ is the primary object of God's love. The extent to which God loves us is constrained by the purposes God has for Christ in this creation. But I don't see how this rules out consequences for all humans as a means of helping people make intelligent moral decisions.

I do not like the idea of prioritizing God's beloved. Christ died for each of us, for all of us, and for his own sentient satisfaction.

To my mind, if God is omnipotent, then the tolerance of senseless suffering (I don't hold that it is absolutely gratuitous) implies that God is less than perfectly loving unless His love is prioritized in effect. We are told to do good unto all men, especially the household of faith. God is said to be the saviour of all men, especially believers. The Israelites were to love their brethren preferentially. I am to love my wife and children, effectually, different than I do other women and children. I don't see this as problematic as long as it is love in effect as opposed to love as desire or intent. But perfect loving intent can only get us back to the point of creation. I think open theism truly does buy the ability to posit that God intended perfection in the beginning. But we are past the point of that possibility now.

So perfect love seems to entail prioritized effects. Otherwise, I don't see how to account for perfect love at all if God is truly omnipotent. I think it's easy to see why process theists have a problem with omnipotence. Trying to account for irrational suffering makes it difficult to coherently conceive of a benevolent AND omnipotent God. The plurality of the godhead buys us that if the Father forebears evil for the sake of another who has priority--namely, His Son. This is the best my mind can come up with. If UR is true, maybe there is some sense in which even current sufferings lead to the greatest good of all, but I can't see how.

So I can't get around hierarchy and priority for now--at least until UR is completely affected. And even then I'm not sure Christ will not be preeminent in God's love somehow. Why else call him the FIRSTborn of many brethren? But we can still say God's love is effectually perfect, given the distinction in essential attributes of beings.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/16/2006 9:37:52 AM (GMT-6)

Zach: I have many responses to this. First of all, what is God's reported denial of justice in the book of Job if not indifference? Job says (and God agrees) that God has denied Job justice.

Jeff: What chapter/verse says it was injustice? God, to my mind, can not do unjustice--only humans can. God is not subject to a law outside of Himself. If there is no accountability for unbelievers, then they can't do injustice either, as I understand it. Justice/injustice seems to assume responsibility/accountability.

Zach: I do not see how this glorifies Christ (unless we use the idea of "Christ's glorification" very very liberally).

Jeff: The intro explains that, I think. Job's steadfastness was an indicator to Satan of the power of God in those who believe, for Satan assumed that Job would deny God if he suffered.

Zach: Certain people have suffered in places that had never heard the gospel. How does their suffering ultimately bring glory to Christ?

Jeff: It doesn't directly. Rather, I think for God to cease the project and/or it's orderly nature (which is necessary to render it probationary), it would be equivalent to Satan depriving Him of His purpose for this creation. God and Christ must now suffer to attain His purpose. So must we now, because of the Fall.

Zach: The biblical fact of the matter is: God denies people justice (and most of the time there is little or no relationship between this and Christ's glory).

Jeff: I would say God owes no creature anything. What good God does He does because that's His nature. Thus, justice isn't relevant to God except in the sense of being true and faithful to His own word and natural revelation. He is not bound by an external law. But I agree that most suffering doesn't glorify God. It is the continuation of the probational project that incremently increases the glory of Christ. If for no other reason than that it gives occasion for believers to suffer with him (which relates to their future glory) and allows time for MORE brethren to be given to Christ.

Zach: So, I guess my first response is to turn your question back to you: How do you deal with the "indifference" of God toward those who suffer as evidenced through experience and His own words in the Bible when Christ's glory isn't at issue?

Jeff: God isn't indifferent, according to the Bible. He hates cruelty and will hold cruel people accountable. He suffers it during the probationary period because it (the probationary period) is necessary for Christ's reign. God could have just stopped the whole project after the Fall. But then Christ would not have received that for which the creation exists. By probationary period, I mean that finite time period wherein God had intended for the creation to reach some kind of fulness. In the pre-Fall world, it could have been completed when the earth was filled up, population-wise. Now, it seems there is more to it than that.

Zach: My second response is that God offers us choice. We can either take our chances in the offender/victim game or we can be victims in a meaningful way. Jesus does not offer freedom from suffering; he offers us a daily cross. He offers us the role of the victim. This victim role is good.

Jeff: Christ says suffering for righteousness sake results in reward. I don't remember him saying that suffering or victimhood, per se, is good or meaningful.

Zach: Ignoring for now life after death, I do not believe that God intends to rescue anyone from suffering, but instead to ascribe meaning to suffering which may bring others to ask forgivenenss and enter into freely chosen loving relationship.

Jeff: How does a person suffering cruelty come to know that a benevolent God is trying to ascribe meaning to that suffering? What knowledge has God provided him/her that would make that inference reasonable?

Zach: Eventually the follower of Christ will be relieved from suffering (and for now there are many outbreaks of comfort). But for now, the suffering of a disciple is actually a good thing. It improves character, draws us into fellowship with Christ, and communicates a message to the world.

Jeff: Agreed, if you mean suffering with Christ "because the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared to the glory we will receive." But I don't see Christ or any other author claiming that suffering cruelty, per se, is good in any sense.

Zach: I believe that Christ suffered and died because it was to the advantage of humankind. It does not atone or "make right" directly. It reveals already available forgiveness and relationship. So scrap "took our bullet." It's not nearly as elegant, but instead I'll say his death opens our eyes to the forgiveness and relationship that sin had led us to believe was impossible. It was always there; we were just blind. Jesus gives sight.

Jeff: If this is what the gospels are saying, I think they did a poor job. The Jews that Christ was speaking to would most likely have taken his language to indicate that his death was atoning. I think the epistles demonstrate this. Most christians throughout history, as far as I can tell, have read him that way also. So he seems to be a poor communicator if he was actually trying to say something radically counter to his Jewish tradition. The Jewish tradition also accounted for the availability of forgiveness. They just believed in atonement.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/16/2006 9:20:36 PM (GMT-6)