 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > The Biblical Call to Justice? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/27/2007 3:41 PM (GMT -6) |   | | First, I've always thought that there were some acts that were intrinsically evil. For example, my example of the little lady. Imagine walking up to a total stranger, blasting them in the face with a gun and then simply walking away. No ryhme or reason to it. Just simple gratutitous evil. The instrinc evil isn't some abstract idea of some violation of the first commandment to love God. Like what does that mean? For me its as if loving God is fulfilled when we regard our fellow creatures with justice--meaning when I love God I will love my neighbour, meaning that I will seek and hope for justice for him or her and in this particular case it will seek and hope for justice for grandma (its unjust to simply shoot grandma and it is unjust not to seek some sort of retribution). But this isn't only towards my fellow humans but to all of creation. Not meaning that I can or should seek justice in every possible situation, seeking justice is not limited to injustice between fellow human beings but injustice to the earth and animals, etc--to creation. In other words, rendering unto God his due is to seek justice. That is, God does justice TO the world (his due) in part by commissioning human beings to exercise justice IN the world. Which is to say that the demands of justice come with creation. Am I making sense here? In other words it will seek to "rightness" in the world which reaches back to the original rightness of God's seven days in which human creatures are called to be stewards and caretakers. God's creational purposes place their demands on humans in EVERY arena of life.
It seems that all of the Lord's judgments and blessings throughout history reaffirm God's first covenant with Adam and Eve. God's judgments against sin and God's redemptive actions in Jesus Christ DO JUSTICE TO AND FULFILL CREATION.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 10/27/2007 3:47:50 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/27/2007 10:32 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/28/2007 10:01 AM (GMT -6) | | | Brandon: It seems that all of the Lord's judgments and blessings throughout history reaffirm God's first covenant with Adam and Eve. God's judgments against sin and God's redemptive actions in Jesus Christ DO JUSTICE TO AND FULFILL CREATION.
Jeff: Yeah, I can see that. I would say that the means to creational ends are different because of volitional choices made along the way--because they modify the conditions under which God must providentially act. But the ends are generically the same. In particular, the category of degree is entailed in God's means/ends. I.e., God is truly trying to maximize Christ's and our sentient satisfaction by motivating us to volitionally choose in a manner fitted to that end. And this is just another way of saying that God's nature (which includes perfect sympathetic sentience, IMO) defines what are the constraints and conditions that constitute the means fitted to our greatest sentient satisfaction.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/28/2007 3:20 PM (GMT -6) | | | Jeff: Yeah, I can see that. I would say that the means to creational ends are different because of volitional choices made along the way--because they modify the conditions under which God must providentially act.
Brandon: I kinda see what you are saying here, but I'm not for sure. Maybe you can clarify it a bit.
Jeff: But the ends are generically the same.
Brandon: I believe I see what you are saying here. You are reiterating what I'm saying about rightness. God seeks original rightness.
Here's the point I'm making. God creates this cosmos. Though Gensis doesn't tell us the full story, the author of Hebrews tells us that the cosmos was made through the divine Word who was with God in the beginning. In other words, God did not just toss the universe into an impersonal void. It exists within the hospitality of this divine communion of the Godhead. I mean D has talked about this on these boards.
The original order of all things is seven days and not six. The creation comes from the Creator and is destined for fulfillment in God's sabbath rest. And we see this with regard to the Israelites. When they were liberated from Egypt, they weren't simply sent on their way. God didn't just drop in on them from time to time to see how they were doing. No. The Liberator walked with them day after day leading them to ultimate sabbath rest. And so we as diverse creatures exist within the divine communion. Creaturely diversity is not haphazrd chaos but a symphonic wonder. Everyone has their own glory with a specific role to play within God's complex drama. However, this grand symphonic complexity of God's creation cries out for recognition and celebration. Meaning, that each creature, because it is God's (this relation between God and creation is probably the thing that deconstructs deontological ethics), calls for special recognition and honor. In other words, every creature deserves justice so the entire creation can testify to the glory of the Lord.
So who besides God can do justice to the world? Who besides God can exercise responsibility for the well-being of so many creatures? Humans. God gives us the responsibility for one another and all other creatures. And God does justice by giving humans their proper due--their proper respect and honor by making room for them (or as Greg would say, "God has given us say-so") to exercise a responsibility that might seem to belong only to God.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/28/2007 5:17 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Brandon: And God does justice by giving humans their proper due--their proper respect and honor by making room for them (or as Greg would say, "God has given us say-so") to exercise a responsibility that might seem to belong only to God.
Jeff: I agree. And here's where my qualification comes in. I consider as a possibility that had Satan, Adam, and Eve not sinned (as per the Fall account), any future person who thus sinned may have died instantaneously without a resultant diminishing of the "very good" state of the natural order (though such a death would have entailed a sense of loss to the rest of human society). I consider, IOW, the possibility that it is only because the only two existing humans sinned that the world had to taken a fallen state. In short, all (all two of them) of humanity had sinned, and therefore, the only way to avoid an extinction of the reproductive species of humans was to allow them to take a kind of responsibility for their choice that didn't entail immediate death. This way, it allowed time for the continuance of the species by subsequent reproduction while allowing God to hold true to His claim that "dying they would die."
To have allowed them to continue in paradise would have been incongruous to one of the conditions of relationship with God. Our state must be fitted to revealing the nature of God. And since God had made humans accountable by nature (by being designed coherently sentient, intelligent, and volitional), His nature demanded that the effect of their actions have the form of a judgment-like consequence since He could not extinguish their life instantaneously without terminating the creational project.
Wrong-relating subsequent to those original sins have caused further suffering to later generations. Much suffering that results from prior actions of sin and divine judgment, even, would not have occured in a non-fallen state of the world. In that sense, I think God's providential actions can have greater affects of suffering as side-effects than would have occured in a non-fallen state, where sin may have simply resulted in death to the sinner instantaneously, thereby minimizing its adverse effects upon the rest of creation.
So when folks say that God must have foreknown the fall because someone would have eventually sinned in all probability, I can't concur. Because I don't assume that a fall would have occured if only a subset of humanity had sinned. If only a subset of humanity had sinned, I hold out the possibility that only they would have died. And yes, we could still say that atonement would have been attained, therefore. But it need not, under those circumstances, have required the complicit involvement of man, necessarily. It may have been accomplished by actions of God and Christ alone in that case.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/28/2007 10:07 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Jeff: I agree. And here's where my qualification comes in. I consider as a possibility that had Satan, Adam, and Eve not sinned (as per the Fall account), any future person who thus sinned may have died instantaneously without a resultant diminishing of the "very good" state of the natural order (though such a death would have entailed a sense of loss to the rest of human society). I consider, IOW, the possibility that it is only because the only two existing humans sinned that the world had to taken a fallen state. In short, all (all two of them) of humanity had sinned, and therefore, the only way to avoid an extinction of the reproductive species of humans was to allow them to take a kind of responsibility for their choice that didn't entail immediate death. This way, it allowed time for the continuance of the species by subsequent reproduction while allowing God to hold true to His claim that "dying they would die."
Brandon: Ummm....nice theory?  Seriously though. I don't understand why any descendant who would have sinned would die instantaneously. What difference would it make if they took a hundred years to die? Could you still not have a diminishing of the "very good" state of the natural order? I don't see why that matters.
Concerning the second half what if only one of them had sinned? Would it have had to take a fallen state? I can accept either way that in order for the continuance of the species, immediate death could not occur.
Jeff: To have allowed them to continue in paradise would have been incongruous to one of the conditions of relationship with God. Our state must be fitted to revealing the nature of God. And since God had made humans accountable by nature (by being designed coherently sentient, intelligent, and volitional), His nature demanded that the effect of their actions have the form of a judgment-like consequence since He could not extinguish their life instantaneously without terminating the creational project.
Brandon: I don't think I quite understand what you mean that our state must be fitted to revealing the nature of God. Why can't the rest of creation reveal the nature of God? Seems to me that the whole cosmos from beginning to end exists as his workshop and garden the temple and the city of his revelatory purposes. Also, why would extinguishing their life instanteously have to terminate the creational project. Why not start with terminating them and starting out with another set of humans?
Jeff: Wrong-relating subsequent to those original sins have caused further suffering to later generations. Much suffering that results from prior actions of sin and divine judgment, even, would not have occured in a non-fallen state of the world. In that sense, I think God's providential actions can have greater affects of suffering as side-effects than would have occured in a non-fallen state, where sin may have simply resulted in death to the sinner instantaneously, thereby minimizing its adverse effects upon the rest of creation.
Brandon: I can't say I really understand you from the third sentence on.
Jeff: So when folks say that God must have foreknown the fall because someone would have eventually sinned in all probability, I can't concur. Because I don't assume that a fall would have occured if only a subset of humanity had sinned. If only a subset of humanity had sinned, I hold out the possibility that only they would have died. And yes, we could still say that atonement would have been attained, therefore. But it need not, under those circumstances, have required the complicit involvement of man, necessarily. It may have been accomplished by actions of God and Christ alone in that case.
Brandon: I know Plantinga preaches that they would have eventually fallen (given their finiteness?). I don't know if he says that God could have foreknown the fall. But he does say eventually in all probability they would have sinned. I haven't got his stuff in front of me (Kelly James Clark says the same) I'll go to the U and look it up. Regardless, sin and the Fall have generally been held together.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 10/29/2007 3:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Our SK reading group is currently going through "The Concept of Anxiety" which addresses the question of "hereditary sin". Now, I need to do a lot more reflecting before I can think I "got it", but the basic point seems to be that we're no different than Adam.
"Through the first sin, sin came into the world. Precisely in the same way it is true of every subsequent man's first sin, that through it sin comes into the world. That it was not in the world before Adam's first sin is, in relation to sin itself, something entirely accidental and irrelevant. It is of no significance at all and cannot justify making Adam's sin greater or the first sin of every other man lesser. It is indeed a logical and ethical heresy ...." (p31)
In our discussion, Tyler has pointed to the Lutheran description of the fall as the "felix culpa" -- the "upward fall". The pre-sin situation was declared "good" -- according to God's purposes for it. That is, God intended there to be anxiety, anxiety as entailed by ignorance (epistemic distance) of sin. But this won't be the case in the eschaton, hence the ultimate state is better than the initial state. If the Edenic state had continued indefinitely, we'd indefinitely remain in a state of anxiety.
So it's not our goal to "get back to Eden". No, we're seeking the Kingdom. It's different, and better. Post Edited (Corey) : 10/29/2007 4:00:46 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/29/2007 6:24 AM (GMT -6) | | | Actually the Bible says that everything God made was "very good."
Gen 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Regardless, I'm supposing that this means according to SK that it was not the best because of anxiety produced by ignorance? What is the difference between the pre-sin situation and the anxiety that God intends for man as entailed by epistemic distance. How will this be all that different in the eschaton? I don't know if we will be able to mine the depths of God such that we will some how close that distance by much. Though I think I can buy into Dwayne's mile marker analogy in which there is some point in which we achieve aesthetic satisfaction.
And what I mean by "getting back to Eden" is what you said with regard to God's purposes for creation. Sure it will be different and better but it seems to me that creation will still fulfill the purposes it was created for in all of it's diversity.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 10/29/2007 7:18 AM (GMT -6) | | | Good, very good, best... I'll use any of those words to describe Eden, but in context. I think SK would affirm it was "very good" in that it was accordant to God's purposes. That is, it was very good in that it was the best path toward God's larger destination. Now, I'm not trying to make any claims that ultimately we will become omniscient ourselves, but only that we will not be ignorant, as Adam and Eve were, as to what misrelation to God entails. The sort of temptations presented in Eden will have no allure in the eschaton; we'll have been there done that. "Fool me once, shame on you... Fool me twice, ..ugh... can't fool me again."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/29/2007 11:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Right. Gotcha. Still, I think we will be culturally engaged in the creational pursuits God created us for. Somethings won't change. This idea of sitting on a cloud with a harp strumming away for all eternity just ain't gonna cut it. We're still gonna "rule and reign" with him.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/29/2007 9:05 PM (GMT -6) | | | Brandon: I know Plantinga preaches that they would have eventually fallen (given their finiteness?). I don't know if he says that God could have foreknown the fall. But he does say eventually in all probability they would have sinned. I haven't got his stuff in front of me (Kelly James Clark says the same) I'll go to the U and look it up. Regardless, sin and the Fall have generally been held together.
Jeff: Here's my issue. I have trouble believing that Genesis is NOT telling us that God provided for the possibility, at least, of a sinless world. It may very well have been exceedingly improbable that such a world exist. But to say it was impossible is, for the open theist it seems, to say that LFW was absolutely incompetent to accomplish sinlessness even in a world that God said was "very good" in the time-frame God had allowed for the filling of the earth. And therefore, God foreknew that sin was inevitable. And therefore, God could not have even intended sinlessness. That seems really bizarre to me.
To my mind, the eschaton is what it is BECAUSE of the Fall. Not because God intended (by absolutely foreknowing) sin and redemption. Indeed, it seems to me that God necessarily intended sin if He created knowing absolutely that sin and the Fall would occur. Intention has to do with purpose. If redemption is what creation is FOR, then sin must have been intended, right? Alternatively, if LFW is incompetent to remain sinless under any conceivable created conditions, then even the original sin is not necessarily the effect of LFW. I have a hard time seeing how it could be otherwise. And yet, if the original sin need not have been the effect of LFW, wouldn't God, in that case, be the author of that sin? And isn't such a notion conceptually meaningless?
Post Edited (jefscott) : 10/29/2007 9:27:29 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/30/2007 4:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: It may very well have been exceedingly improbable that such a world exist.
Brandon: Right. And I think this goes hand in hand with the whole EDF thing. I think we've talked on these boards before about God creating the world knowing in all probability that the first humans would sin which is ultimately why we lay the blame on God. For some reason, God thought the risk was worth it and then got his hands dirty to do something about it. It seems strange to me as well, but I think we do have to blame God if that is the case.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/30/2007 12:36 PM (GMT -6) | | | Jeff: I think Zach is right, though, that you can't really apply the normal concept of probability to LFW. Probability typically assumes a kind of randomness or pattern--which we typically associate with habit rather than bona-fide choice. LFW, however, is a form of determinism--SELF determinism. In that sense, it's hard to apply probability to it in the normal senses that we do to other phenomenon. So I would like a really clear definition of "probable" in the context of LFW.
Brandon: Well this is getting into the question of possible worlds. There exist possible worlds in which creatures always do right freely (the best of all worlds), but it's my belief that it is possible that it was impossible for God (not within his power) to have created a world in which we would always do right. That is, God can GUARANTEE that free creatures always do what is right only by violating their free will. Now you may say that at that point that they are not free, but it seems to me that we cannot know the COMPLETE causal explanation of a free act. I suppose if we could it really wouldn't be free. And it seems to Plantinga that once God chooses to create PEOPLE that is free agents, he also chooses the GENUINE POSSIBILITY of evil. The question you seem to be bringing up is that if God knows this, that this makes him, intentionally so, the author of evil. To that I would say, yes. It's the risk he took.
What this means in terms of probability is that in whatever world God can create, if person A is free he would have freely gone wrong AT LEAST ONCE. So if God wants to create a world in which his creatures always do what is right, person A must be left out. This is what Plantinga calls "transworld depravity." If a person suffers from the malaise of transworld depravity, then in all worlds God can create in which that person exist and is free, that person would have freely gone wrong at least once. This is dependent on person A not on God. And if one suffers from TWD then it is not possible for God to create a world in which one is free and does no wrong.
If this is problematic for one person, consider how it would be for EVERYBODY. It seems to me that God could not have created a world containing moral good but no moral evil. Meaning that if TWD is possible, it is possible that God wanting to create free creatures, could not have created free creatures who always do right. If this is the case and we place the blame with God, I don't think we can say that God is not good because of his knowledge of this.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/3/2007 11:54 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Brandon: I don't understand why any descendant who would have sinned would die instantaneously. What difference would it make if they took a hundred years to die?
Jeff: It wouldn't matter if they never sinned again, and all knew that he/she would definitely die eventually for the sin. But I don't see why dying immediately is illogical either.
Brandon: Could you still not have a diminishing of the "very good" state of the natural order? I don't see why that matters.
Concerning the second half what if only one of them had sinned? Would it have had to take a fallen state? I can accept either way that in order for the continuance of the species, immediate death could not occur.
I don't think I quite understand what you mean that our state must be fitted to revealing the nature of God. Why can't the rest of creation reveal the nature of God?
Jeff: If the rest of creation, irrespective to how it affects us sentiently, is all that is necessary for the revealing of God's nature, then why was there a Fall at all? What did the Fall actually accomplish, to your mind? When I read verses about the lamb lying down with the lion in the future because the land will be filled with the knowledge of God, that leads me to believe that the moral state of man somehow affects, necessarily, his own environment. And this, both in terms of natural cause/effect AND in terms of providential effects. And I assume that this latter must be because of God's intention of revealing His posture towards sin via creation. I don't know any other way to explain why the Fall even occured if we say:
1) God could have just dropped Eve dead the minute she sinned and before she asked Adam, and then recreated another woman,
and/or
2) The world can remain very good in all of its original aspects apart from the natural cause and effect of human action (i.e., no cursed ground, no sweating from work, no/less child-birth pain) and yet God's purposes can still be fulfilled.
If either of these two is true, I can't imagine why a benevolent creator would have preferred a Fall of creation, per se, with all of the extra "vain" suffering involved.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 41 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:04 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 |
|
|