 |
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/5/2004 2:33 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Much that happens to us IS regrettable by us and God. But no one regrets more deeply than God.
Here's something (the only thing) that I can think to interject. An aside, sure. But related in a way.
On a Reformed Listserve a philosophy PhD and prof at Vanderbuilt who has a family background that is both Reformed and Orthodox... gave input in a thread regarding Anselm's sustitution theory of atonement. As discussion went the notion of "God's Wrath" came up. The Orthodox philosophy professor provided some input on what the texts really say. What in American theology we read as God's "wrath" is rightfully read as his "zeal." Boiled down to one sentence, God is going to Love us whether we choose to want him to or not. The "zeal" is as forceful as the instances in Greek where the word is used to apply to a military general's implementation. Don't step in front of the tank (Notice I jumped to the 20th century.  ) or you might get run over. God is zealous for his will.
Put Tom's remarks into that scenerio and what you have in "regret" is persistance, and unfailingness. (Which are statements that are both made from our point-of-view.)
The depth of the depth of God's "regret is his UNFAILING LOVE. God loves ALL.
One could, then, point to what Bishop Kallistos Ware did, in quoting St. Isaac the Syrian, that God loves every being that is, even those that most reject his love. (Take that to the extreemest extreem that you can, and you will be on target.)
quote:
St. Silouan offers yet another interesting perspective on love for enemies that is rarely found in other writings. Among those enemies who are recipients of his love and compassion are included even the devil and demons. He writes, "Only the Holy Spirit teaches love, and then even devils arouse our pity because they have fallen from good, and lost all humility in God."
This teaching of universal love and all-compassionate pity extending even to the demons as fallen angels is found not only in the writings of St. Silouan but also in St. Isaac the Syrian: "...what is a merciful heart? It is the heart's burning for the sake of the entire creation, for men, birds, or animals, for demons, and for every created thing....For this reason he offers up tearful prayer continually even for...enemies of the truth."www.christian-forums.com/t60669&page=2
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/6/2004 1:28 AM (GMT -6) | | (Reposting this, as apparently it was overlooked).
Originally posted by John Earp
Lee,
Paul said that "not all Israel are Israel," and makes it clear that a true Israelite is not one outwardly, but one inwardly, whose praise is not of men but of God. Jesus said essentially the same thing when he said to those Jews who opposed him, "You are of your father the Devil," "If God were your Father, then you would love me," and "God is able to raise up from these stones children unto Abraham."
The point is that your insistence upon "all Israel" equalling "all Jews," does not seem to be borne out by the facts of the New Testament. The way I understand it, "all Israel" refers to "all the faithful" Also stated as "the JUST shall live by faith, but if any one draws back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him."
"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
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/6/2004 9:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Lee: I can even allow "all Israel" to not be all without exception, and still make this point. If "all Israel" means "more than half," and if the probability of one person repenting is 50%...
Kingsaint: Why do you insist that the probability of one person believing is 50%. In one of my post, I said that given certain circumstances God could have good statistical evidence that a person would believe with any % you like (as long as freedom is preserved).
I would then appeal to history, and say that God's people have always been a remnant, certainly less than 50%. Operation World says the nation of Israel is 2.3% Christian. The whole world is 32.8% Christian, according to this book. Thus I think it is quite conservative to estimate the probability of one person believing at 50%...
quote:
God can rig history (the parts that do not depend on human choice) with 100% certainty and suppose he rigs history in such a way that he would have strong statistical knowledge that an individual Israelite would believe with a probability of .9999999999.
But history is almost all about human choices! Ruler this, war that, invention this, rebellion that. And if God can produce a probability of .999999999 that people will believe, then why, on your view, doesn't he do just that?
quote:
If a group of people are prone to being provoked by jealousy to believe, then if you create jealous-provoking circumstances, then you can be statistically certain that a high number of those people will believe.
2.3% in Israel, today. Now that's not all Messianic believers, as a portion of all Jewish people! But I think the percentage of this would be comparable, Moishe Rosen said he thought he knew of every Jewish believer at one time in his ministry. More Jewish people are coming to the Lord these days, so Moishe said he can't say that any more. But I think it's still a small fraction of Jewish people who believe.
quote:
So, if open theism is true and you are worried about the Israelites believing then join the fight: pray, study read, preach--it is these things that open theism "encourages" and determinism logically discourages.
I'm not worried! But I want to be involved. And God also determines my involvement! You have sneaked in free-will here through the back window with this statement. But I'm not a strict determinist, I believe that within God's will, believers can really choose.
quote:
Tom: If God were never to get anything he wanted with respect to human beings freely choosing to love him, he wouldn’t explode, cease to exist, or short-circuit. His life would go on.
Lee: But he wouldn't be God.
Tom: There you have it ladies and gentlemen. God can only exist if he’s an all-determining God who always gets what he wants.
That wasn't what you said, though. You said "if God were never to get anything he wanted with respect to human beings freely choosing to love him." I don't think even Open Theists would say that God should be considered God in that case! Now we have "the invisible chess master." As Swanlake said. Though I don't think that's necessarily what they meant!
quote:
I can’t think of a weaker view of God than that which views him as capable only of deterministic ways of relating to others.
I don't believe that, though!
DT 23:23 Whatever your lips utter you must be sure to do, because you made your vow freely to the Lord your God with your own mouth.
I think believers are indeed free, within the will of God. Which is infinite, what is forbidden is finite, like the fence around the tree in the garden.
quote:
Why should God have to apologize to us for the evil that happens in such a world? Do parents owe their children an apology for choosing to bring them into a world in which parents aren’t in control of peoples’ decisions and where horrible evil touches their children?
Well, I have heard of children saying to their parents, "I didn't ask to be born." Which is this sort of statement.
God set up the world! And if God is not in complete control, then some evil happens that he did not plan for, that has no good purpose, and is simply regrettable. Thus in this case, I think it would be appropriate for God to say "I'm sorry that happened." Just like we do when we hear of a illness or an accident, that we didn't cause. But God never does say that! Thus I think he is in control, for a good purpose.
quote:
If God determines everything, then I can understand somebody expecting an apology from God.
If some of what happens turns out for a bad purpose, then that is true. But if everything that happens turns out for a good purpose, no apology is necessary.
quote:
St. Silouan: "Only the Holy Spirit teaches love, and then even devils arouse our pity because they have fallen from good, and lost all humility in God."
I'm not sure here. There are verses that seem to indicate even the demons can be saved (Col. 1:20), and verses that seem to indicate that this is impossible (Rev. 20:10). But I still trust God's good purpose, regardless!
quote:
John: The way I understand it, "all Israel" refers to "all the faithful" Also stated as "the JUST shall live by faith..."
Sorry, I didn't mean to skip your point. If this is true, then we have "all Israel will be all Israel," or "all who will be saved will be saved." Thus it seems to me to make the verse be pretty meaningless.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/6/2004 12:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: And if God can produce a probability of .999999999 that people will believe, then why, on your view, doesn't he do just that?
Tom: He did do that.
quote:
Tom: If God were never to get anything he wanted with respect to human beings freely choosing to love him, he wouldn’t explode, cease to exist, or short-circuit. His life would go on.
Lee: But he wouldn't be God.
Tom: There you have it ladies and gentlemen. God can only exist if he’s an all-determining God who always gets what he wants.
Lee: That wasn't what you said, though. You said "if God were never to get anything he wanted with respect to human beings freely choosing to love him." I don't think even Open Theists would say that God should be considered God in that case!
I would consider God to be God in that case and I’m an open theist. And I know others well enough to know the same about them. The point is, Lee, you posit an unconditional determinism in the one area of life—a personal and mutual relationship of love—in which it is most impossible to posit determinism.
As I read and re-read through your posts, Lee, it seems clear to me that you DO in fact believe God is capable of relating to us only in deterministic ways. If not, offer an example that contradicts this belief. You claim to not be a “strict” determinist:
“I'm not a strict determinist, I believe that within God's will, believers can really choose.”
“I don't believe that, though!” (said in response to my saying I can’t think of a weaker view of God than that which views him as capable only of deterministic ways of relating to others).
“I think believers are indeed free, within the will of God. Which is infinite, what is forbidden is finite, like the fence around the tree in the garden.”
“…if God is not in complete control…”
I don’t see anything but strict determinism in these comments. That people are free to choose “within” God’s will for them only means we’re free to make the choices God predetermined us to make. This doesn’t deserve to be called “freedom” in my view. But call it what you will, it is not other than strict determinism, since God’s will for them is exhaustively specific. God is, as you say, in “complete control.” No event of our lives lays outside of that control. Your comments and beliefs give every indication of being those of a strict determinist and they undermine the integrity of the interpersonal and loving relationship we are called to in Christ.
Lee: Well, I have heard of children saying to their parents, "I didn't ask to be born." Which is this sort of statement.
Tom: Not even close. I’ve wished I was never born and confessed “I didn’t ask to be born.” This doesn’t amount to asking for or feeling I deserved an “apology” from my parents for conceiving me.
Lee: God set up the world!
Tom: I can say that too. But for you this means God determines everything that happens, that he always gets what he wants, that every evil is specifically “caused” (your word) for some specific good. For me “set up the world” means something entirely different. For me it means God designed and set up the game and establish the rules but left us free to move in ways that are “undetermined” by God.
Lee: And if God is not in complete control, then some evil happens that he did not plan for, that has no good purpose, and is simply regrettable.
Tom: Well, no evil occurs that God didn’t “plan for” if you mean “contingency planning” (which you don’t mean, but which I do mean). Just as Kasparov plans for any possible move and has contingency responses prepared but doesn’t determine his opponent’s moves (doesn’t need to!), so God is prepared for anything that might happen. So if you say “…then evil happens that serves no good purpose…” then I’d completely agree which the statement. I believe in gratuitous evil, evil that God opposes, doesn’t wish, and tries to prevent; evil that serves no good purpose and without which the world would be a better place and more aligned with God’s purposes. This does NOT mean God is not able to REPSOND to a gratuitously evil event and work to bring good out of it. He can and does. It means God does not unconditionally determine evil SO THAT he can bring good out of it. I have no option but to regard such determinism as reprehensible.
So, yes, not only is some evil regrettable. ALL evil is regrettable. And yes, God regrets it all. And so should we.
Lee: Thus in this case, I think it would be appropriate for God to say "I'm sorry that happened." Just like we do when we hear of a illness or an accident, that we didn't cause. But God never does say that! Thus I think he is in control, for a good purpose.
Tom: This paragraph is shot through with bad reasoning, Lee. For starters, even IF it was true that God never expresses the kind of sorrow you describe, it doesn’t follow “thus” that he controls all things so that he gets every outcome he wishes for a specific good. Secondly, even IF God does express the sort of sorrow you claim he doesn’t express, it doesn’t follow that he’d owe us an “apology” (which is what you originally claimed). Thirdly, you said God never “apologizes” in Scripture. Of course he doesn’t “apologize.” This proves nothing for your case or mine (as I noted in the previous post). But now you’re talking about God saying “I’m sorry that happened” regarding an event he didn’t “cause” (You determinist you!). Saying “I’m sorry that happened” (the way we say it to victims of illnesses or accidents) is NOT “apologizing” to the victims. Lastly, you incorrectly deny God expresses this sort of regret and sorrow over evil. He does express such sorrow. He does say “I regret that happened,” and “I regret this happened.”
quote:
Tom: If God determines everything, then I can understand somebody expecting an apology from God.
Lee: If some of what happens turns out for a bad purpose, then that is true. But if everything that happens turns out for a good purpose, no apology is necessary.
I’m glad you didn’t object to the claim that “God determines everything.” You ARE a strict determinist. Glad that’s settled.
You’re only comment regards whether those for whom God determines evil are owed an apology by God. And you admit God would owe such people an apology IF there was no good brought about by their evil. I don’t agree with this, but never mind that. Just tell us, Lee…
What good is fulfilled by people refusing to love God?
Again, we’re just standing on the other side of the same fundamental difference between us. You believe God wouldn’t be God if he didn’t so determine all things. I don’t at all see that in Scripture. Oh well.
Lee: Sorry, I didn't mean to skip your point. If this is true, then we have "all Israel will be all Israel," or "all who will be saved will be saved." Thus it seems to me to make the verse be pretty meaningless.
Tom: You’ve been answered on this very point. Now we’re going in circles. And the only thing worse that going in circles is believing you were determined to go in circles.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 6/6/2004 2:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Lee,
quote:
Tom: You’ve been answered on this very point. Now we’re going in circles. And the only thing worse that going in circles is believing you were determined to go in circles.
Great point Tom! Lee, I asked before why would God choose to save people via jealousy? Your response was simply that God uses "means". This response doesn't answer my question. Why jealousy? One would think that God would choose to save people via a more noble sentiment, such as awe or amazement. This treads on the whole theodicy issue which segues to my next point:
quote:
And if God can produce a probability of .999999999 that people will believe, then why, on your view, doesn't he do just that?
The whole open theistic theodicy is based on the idea that love requires freedom. God doesn't normally produce .999999999 situations because this lessens the value of love (and we have to think out the whole spiritual warfare motif). Now, perhaps there are times when God does produce high probabilities. In fact, this is how an open theist could interpret those passages in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel which talk about the new covenant (giving a new heart, writing law on heart etc.). God resolves the tension between God's conditional covenants (Mosaic) and his "unconditional" covenants (Abrahamic, Davidic) by insuring that the conditional covenant will be fulfilled (meaning with a very high degree of probability). It should not be forgotten that this was the tension Paul was dealing with in Romans 9-11. Therefore, it could be argued that God lessens the value of Israel's choice to love God in order to honor (because God loves Abraham) a covenant God made with Abraham etc. This argument (with thanks to David Noel Freedman) is in the embryonic stage, but it seems promising.
quote:
But history is almost all about human choices! Ruler this, war that, invention this, rebellion that.
Here is where you show your true colors! You deny that God can rig history in spite of human choices. This shows a lack of faith in God's sovereignty. You (determinism) make God less sovereign in order to cover your lack of faith.
quote:
I would then appeal to history, and say that God's people have always been a remnant, certainly less than 50%. Operation World says the nation of Israel is 2.3% Christian. The whole world is 32.8% Christian, according to this book. Thus I think it is quite conservative to estimate the probability of one person believing at 50%...
I'm not sure why you bring this up when I already argued that the 50% (or even 90%) need not be the determining probability when God rigs history to produce higher probabilities.
Shalom, kingsaint
"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."
--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard" | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 6/6/2004 3:49 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Tom: ...Now we’re going in circles. And the only thing worse that going in circles is believing you were determined to go in circles.
Tom
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/7/2004 4:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Lee: And if God can produce a probability of .999999999 that people will believe, then why, on your view, doesn't he do just that?
Tom: He did do that.
I'm not sure I understand you, though, why do you say he did that?
quote:
Lee: "if God were never to get anything he wanted with respect to human beings freely choosing to love him..." I don't think even Open Theists would say that God should be considered God in that case!
Tom: I would consider God to be God in that case and I’m an open theist. And I know others well enough to know the same about them.
But Dr. Boyd explains the area of relationships with God through the invincible chess master analogy.
quote:
As I read and re-read through your posts, Lee, it seems clear to me that you DO in fact believe God is capable of relating to us only in deterministic ways. If not, offer an example that contradicts this belief.
OK, here's one example:
1CO 7:38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.
Both choices are said to be in God's will, the "better" choice is not the only choice.
quote:
That people are free to choose “within” God’s will for them only means we’re free to make the choices God predetermined us to make. This doesn’t deserve to be called “freedom” in my view. But call it what you will, it is not other than strict determinism, since God’s will for them is exhaustively specific. God is, as you say, in “complete control.”
By "complete control" I mean that if God wants one choice over another choice, his will will be done. But God allows choices within his will, that is what I mean by that. And it's real freedom:
1CO 9:1 Am I not free?
quote:
Lee: God set up the world!
Tom: I can say that too. But for you this means God determines everything that happens, that he always gets what he wants, that every evil is specifically “caused” (your word) for some specific good. For me “set up the world” means something entirely different. For me it means God designed and set up the game and establish the rules but left us free to move in ways that are “undetermined” by God.
Yes, and set up a world where senseless evil was real. Parents are not choosing the parameters for children to live in, it's a fallen world already. Thus their situation is different than God planning a world according to the Open View scheme. If you design a car in a world where there are accidents, then you are not liable. But if you design a car and a world where there are needless accidents, then there is accountability. That's different.
quote:
Tom: if you say “…then evil happens that serves no good purpose…” then I’d completely agree which the statement. I believe in gratuitous evil, evil that God opposes, doesn’t wish, and tries to prevent; evil that serves no good purpose and without which the world would be a better place and more aligned with God’s purposes. This does NOT mean God is not able to RESPOND to a gratuitously evil event and work to bring good out of it. He can and does.
But if there is gratuitous evil, then God cannot always bring good out of it.
quote:
Lee: Thus in this case, I think it would be appropriate for God to say "I'm sorry that happened." Just like we do when we hear of a illness or an accident, that we didn't cause. But God never does say that!
Tom: Saying “I’m sorry that happened” (the way we say it to victims of illnesses or accidents) is NOT “apologizing” to the victims. Lastly, you incorrectly deny God expresses this sort of regret and sorrow over evil. He does express such sorrow. He does say “I regret that happened,” and “I regret this happened.”
No, I'm granting you your point, and saying that God should say "I'm sorry" in another sense. You seem to be saying he does. I don't think these passages you have in mind are saying "I'm sorry" to people though. Nor do I think they express regret on God's part. But that's another subject!
quote:
Tom: If God determines everything, then I can understand somebody expecting an apology from God.
Lee: If some of what happens turns out for a bad purpose, then that is true. But if everything that happens turns out for a good purpose, no apology is necessary.
Tom: I’m glad you didn’t object to the claim that “God determines everything.” You ARE a strict determinist.
That was your comment! I state this differently. Or try to. Sometimes, no doubt, I don't express myself as well as I want to.
quote:
Tom: What good is fulfilled by people refusing to love God?
I don't think they will! I hope that all will repent, and love God, some day.
quote:
Kingsaint: I asked before why would God choose to save people via jealousy? Your response was simply that God uses "means". This response doesn't answer my question. Why jealousy? One would think that God would choose to save people via a more noble sentiment...
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere--'Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,' as Herbert says, 'fine nets and stratagems.' God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous." (C.S. Lewis)
quote:
Kingsaint: ... it could be argued that God lessens the value of Israel's choice to love God in order to honor (because God loves Abraham) a covenant God made with Abraham etc.
Well, if I see someone careening toward a cliff, and I could save them with 99.999999% probability if I wanted to, then I should make that effort. Why doesn't God do that, in the most critical area of salvation? Why would it only be done to keep a promise, instead?
quote:
Lee: But history is almost all about human choices! Ruler this, war that, invention this, rebellion that.
Kingsaint: You deny that God can rig history in spite of human choices. This shows a lack of faith in God's sovereignty. You (determinism) make God less sovereign in order to cover your lack of faith.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, though. History is about human choices, it's not about cabbages, it's about kings. I do believe that God controls human history, how is the fact that history is about choices making God less sovereign? Or decreasing my faith, though?
quote:
Kingsaint: ... I already argued that the 50% (or even 90%) need not be the determining probability when God rigs history to produce higher probabilities.
Yes, but he doesn't. Then why doesn't he? That is my question.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/8/2004 12:35 AM (GMT -6) | | More circles!
quote:
Lee: And if God can produce a probability of .999999999 that people will believe, then why, on your view, doesn't he do just that?
Tom: He did do that.
Lee: I'm not sure I understand you, though, why do you say he did that?
I say he did that because it appears to me that he did that. He created the world with a .99999 (and the nine’s stretch from here to the farthest star) probability that some would believe (not ‘which’ would believe, just ‘whosoever will’).
Lee: But Dr. Boyd explains the area of relationships with God through the invincible chess master analogy.
Tom: So do I, and it works IF (and the if’s stretch from the farthest start back to St. Paul) the course of the game is all of history and the goal of the game is getting as many as POSSIBLE to choose to love him.
quote:
Tom: As I read and re-read through your posts, Lee, it seems clear to me that you DO in fact believe God is capable of relating to us only in deterministic ways. If not, offer an example that contradicts this belief.
Lee: OK, here's one example: 1CO 7:38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better. Both choices are said to be in God's will, the "better" choice is not the only choice.
Unless the choice between “well” and “better” is determined by the one making the choice, this is just empty talk. Determinists, of course, also argue that whether one chooses to marry or not is unconditionally determined by God (as you claim every person's choice to believe in and love God or not is determined by God). Quoting verses from the Bible that say we have freedom to choose doesn’t mean your overall theology makes sense of such freedom. In your case it doesn't.
quote:
Tom: That people are free to choose “within” God’s will for them only means we’re free to make the choices God predetermined us to make. This doesn’t deserve to be called “freedom” in my view. But call it what you will, it is not other than strict determinism, since God’s will for them is exhaustively specific. God is, as you say, in “complete control.”
Lee: By "complete control" I mean that if God wants one choice over another choice, his will will be done. But God allows choices within his will, that is what I mean by that. And it's real freedom.
Open theists don’t deny limits to libertarian free will. I don’t have “unlimited” power to choose. I can’t choose to fly unaided to the moon, for example. But within the limited number of choices I DO have, my free will is libertarian (i.e., self-determined). Freedom isn’t real if God is unconditionally determining which choice we make. Just noting that we are conscious of choosing between options doesn’t itself hold up your system if your system also maintains that you believe God determines the choice. If God determines in eternity to limit us to choices x, y, and z and we have libertarian free will with regard to these choices, THAT is real freedom with respect to choices “within limitations.” It’s not real freedom if God “determines” which of x, y, and z I’ll choose. There’s a difference between limiting the number of libertarian choices a person may make and limiting (or determining) the exercise of the will itself.
Question is, Lee, is anything that happens in the world NOT determined by God, not a result of God’s deciding that it should happen? If the answer to this is "no", then you can quote ICor 7.38 all day long and still not make sense of freedom and moral responsibility.
Lee: Yes, and set up a world where senseless evil was real.
Tom: Where senseless evil was possible, not where it was real.
Lee: Parents are not choosing the parameters for children to live in, it's a fallen world already. Thus their situation is different than God planning a world according to the Open View scheme. If you design a car in a world where there are accidents, then you are not liable. But if you design a car and a world where there are needless accidents, then there is accountability. That's different.
Tom: It’s not different. The analogy applies by limiting it to specific evil touching specific children. It may be a fallen world we bring out children into, but not one in which their suffering specific evils is certain. I know my daughters MAY and MAY NOT be raped. I know my sons MAY and MAY NOT become rapists. If my daughters ARE raped I don’t owe them an apology for bringing them into a world in which I knew their being raped was possible.
If you design a car TO BE IN AN ACCIDENT (which is your view), then you are liable. This is the illogic of your claim. You want to claim that God designed some persons for hell, designed them to refuse his love and grace. But you want to insist that God is not responsible for their sin and doesn’t owe them an apology because God determined this for them FOR GOOD REASONS. When I ask you what good is fulfilled in anybody’s rejecting the love of God, you take evasive action and refuse to answer.
But if you design a car in a world were there is only a possibility of accidents, even needless accidents, there is no liability for the car designer. None whatsoever.
Lee: But if there is gratuitous evil, then God cannot always bring good out of it.
Tom: God isn’t always successful in bringing about good in response to evil. Why believe that God has to always be successful in bringing some good out of evil situations?
Lee: No, I'm granting you your point, and saying that God should say "I'm sorry" in another sense. You seem to be saying he does. I don't think these passages you have in mind are saying "I'm sorry" to people though. Nor do I think they express regret on God's part. But that's another subject!
Tom: I’d never concede that God “apologizes” to people. I’d argue he does express regret. He does say “I regret/I’m sorry that x happened to you.” And I'd argue further that no sense can be made of my expressing regret/sorrow over some event if I am the one unconditionally determining the event.
quote:
Tom: What good is fulfilled by people refusing to love God?
Lee: I don't think they will! I hope that all will repent, and love God, some day.
This is not hard Lee. Come on. People have ALREADY died refusing to love God. Lots of ‘em. What specific good was fulfilled in by their refusing to love God?
Lee: Well, if I see someone careening toward a cliff, and I could save them with 99.999999% probability if I wanted to, then I should make that effort. Why doesn't God do that, in the most critical area of salvation?
Tom: You should answer this Lee. It’s your problem. You’re the one who believes God unconditionally determines everybody’s choice regarding salvation. If they’re lost, that was God’s purpose for them. If they reject God’s love, God had a good reason for determining them to reject his love. But God’s certainly capable (in your system) of guaranteeing 100% that everyone gets saved. He COULD do that. He just doesn’t WANT everyone saved. But according to your reasons, since God CAN guarantee the salvation of somebody, he OUGHT to make the effort since he can guarantee the save with 100% probability. Yet you deny that God makes the effort. You’re problem. Not mine.
I'm not going around in circles anymore! 
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/8/2004 3:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Lee: And if God can produce a probability of .999999999 that people will believe, then why, on your view, doesn't he do just that?
Tom: He created the world with a .99999 (and the nine’s stretch from here to the farthest star) probability that some would believe (not ‘which’ would believe, just ‘whosoever will’).
We've switched tracks here, though. We were talking about the probability that some given group would believe: "The whole open theistic theodicy is based on the idea that love requires freedom. God doesn't normally produce .999999999 situations because this lessens the value of love..." That's different! Why doesn't God do that?
quote:
Lee: But Dr. Boyd explains the area of relationships with God through the invincible chess master analogy.
Tom: So do I, and it works IF (and the if’s stretch from the farthest start back to St. Paul) the course of the game is all of history and the goal of the game is getting as many as POSSIBLE to choose to love him.
That doesn't fit very well with invincibility, though. The whole point of the analogy is that God wins no matter how people choose.
quote:
Tom: Unless the choice between “well” and “better” is determined by the one making the choice, this is just empty talk. Determinists, of course, also argue that whether one chooses to marry or not is unconditionally determined by God (as you claim every person's choice to believe in and love God or not is determined by God).
Yes to the second choice, no to the first. Why can't believers choose freely, if God says they can? I'm taking his authority on this, I think.
quote:
Lee: By "complete control" I mean that if God wants one choice over another choice, his will will be done. But God allows choices within his will, that is what I mean by that. And it's real freedom.
Tom: Question is, Lee, is anything that happens in the world NOT determined by God, not a result of God’s deciding that it should happen?
Yes, not determined by God the Father, he gives authority to Jesus, and Jesus gives authority to believers:
REV 3:21 To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.
LK 10:19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy...
With more to come (Rev. 3:21 again)...
quote:
Lee: ... if you design a car and a world where there are needless accidents, then there is accountability. That's different.
Tom: It’s not different. The analogy applies by limiting it to specific evil touching specific children. It may be a fallen world we bring out children into, but not one in which their suffering specific evils is certain. I know my daughters MAY and MAY NOT be raped. I know my sons MAY and MAY NOT become rapists. If my daughters ARE raped I don’t owe them an apology for bringing them into a world in which I knew their being raped was possible.
I hold that's still different than designing a world that way, where needless evil can occur. Game designers are responsible for the types of games that can be played with their game sets. Those who play the game are not responsible for that, and have to choose within those limitations.
quote:
Tom: You want to claim that God designed some persons for hell, designed them to refuse his love and grace. But you want to insist that God is not responsible for their sin and doesn’t owe them an apology because God determined this for them FOR GOOD REASONS. When I ask you what good is fulfilled in anybody’s rejecting the love of God, you take evasive action and refuse to answer.
Not at all! I hope that all may be saved, thus God designs everyone for salvation, thus God indeed determined their future for good reasons. And set them free.
quote:
Tom: I’d never concede that God “apologizes” to people. I’d argue he does express regret. He does say “I regret/I’m sorry that x happened to you.”
That second statement was what I was after, and I don't think that's in the Bible. Not with the people the tower of Siloam fell on, nor the people whose blood Pilate mixed with their sacrifices, nor the boy who had been demonized from an early age, nor the people in Jerusalem who would face destruction.
quote:
This is not hard Lee. Come on. People have ALREADY died refusing to love God. Lots of ‘em. What specific good was fulfilled in by their refusing to love God?
I hope they may still repent:
REV 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!"
This is spoken by the glorified church, on her wedding day, to people who are thirsty. And I don't think she is inviting herself!
quote:
Lee: Well, if I see someone careening toward a cliff, and I could save them with 99.999999% probability if I wanted to, then I should make that effort. Why doesn't God do that, in the most critical area of salvation?
Tom: You should answer this Lee. It’s your problem. You’re the one who believes God unconditionally determines everybody’s choice regarding salvation.
Yes, again, I hope that all may be saved. Now it's your turn...
quote:
Swanlake: Are these people willfully driving over the cliff?
If a person is about to commit suicide, shouldn't you try and stop them?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/8/2004 8:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: We've switched tracks here, though. We were talking about the probability that some given group would believe: "The whole open theistic theodicy is based on the idea that love requires freedom. God doesn't normally produce .999999999 situations because this lessens the value of love..." That's different! Why doesn't God do that?
Tom: I was never talking about “given groups” (like “all Israel”). You got off on that. The chess analogy is meant to illustrate God’s overall relations with creation and his ability to win. A 99.9999 (to the stars and back) probability that over the course of history there will be some people (many in fact) who choose to love God does not lessen the value of love. In this case the probability rests in the nature of the game and the rules that govern it. If you can’t see this given your take on Rom. 11, then fine.
quote:
Lee: But Dr. Boyd explains the area of relationships with God through the invincible chess master analogy.
Tom: So do I, and it works IF (and the if’s stretch from the farthest start back to St. Paul) the course of the game is all of history and the goal of the game is getting as many as POSSIBLE to choose to love him.
Lee: That doesn't fit very well with invincibility, though. The whole point of the analogy is that God wins no matter how people choose.
No, the point is that there are enough choices over the course of the game over which to distribute the probability that Kasparov will win. The better one is at anticipating possible moves and scenarios relative to one’s opponent, the greater the probability that one will win. In the case of Kasparov playing the world’s worst player, I don’t believe we can calculate the probability of Kasparov’s winning; it’s so high. In God’s case the difference in intelligence, power, goodness, and love is so much more great the probability that he’ll win is incalculably large. I’d call Kasparov (and God) invincible in their respective games.
If you need 100% to justify the use of “invincible,” then don’t use invincible. I don’t at all mind saying “Michael Jordan is invincible in playing one-on-one basketball against any one-armed, blind, pot-bellied white guy.” You’re getting hung up on the incalculably small difference between the actual probability of Michael Jordan’s winning in such circumstances and 100% is irrational. I can’t speak to it any more because I can’t understand it holding such sway over somebody.
quote:
Tom: Unless the choice between “well” and “better” is determined by the one making the choice, this is just empty talk. Determinists, of course, also argue that whether one chooses to marry or not is unconditionally determined by God (as you claim every person's choice to believe in and love God or not is determined by God).
Lee: Yes to the second choice, no to the first. Why can't believers choose freely, if God says they can?
The problem is one of consistency for you. People CAN choose freely (i.e., libertarianly) if God says they can. So why recognize this for marriage and deny it for salvation when the Bible applies the same freedom language for both?
quote:
Lee: By "complete control" I mean that if God wants one choice over another choice, his will will be done. But God allows choices within his will, that is what I mean by that. And it's real freedom.
Tom: Question is, Lee, is anything that happens in the world NOT determined by God, not a result of God’s deciding that it should happen?
Lee: Yes, not determined by God the Father, he gives authority to Jesus, and Jesus gives authority to believers:
I have no idea what you just said.
Lee (giving an example of something that is NOT determined by God…I think): REV 3:21 To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.
Tom: To overcome is to persevere in salvation. But you’ve already made clear above that God alone determines who gets saved. You can’t now offer perseverance as an example of an event that is not determined by God.
Lee: I hold that's still different than designing a world that way, where needless evil can occur. Game designers are responsible for the types of games that can be played with their game sets. Those who play the games are not responsible for that, and have to choose within those limitations.
Tom: And the point is?
Yes, Lee, we have to play the game God placed us in and play according to the rules God set up. There is no reason to believe God cannot, if he wishes to, create a game which is based on libertarian free will, moral responsibility, and partly open in its outcome. There’s nothing self-contradictory (like a married bachelor) about this. If God wants to do that, he can. He’s God.
quote:
Tom: You want to claim that God designed some persons for hell, designed them to refuse his love and grace. But you want to insist that God is not responsible for their sin and doesn’t owe them an apology because God determined this for them FOR GOOD REASONS. When I ask you what good is fulfilled in anybody’s rejecting the love of God, you take evasive action and refuse to answer.
Lee: Not at all! I hope that all may be saved, thus God designs everyone for salvation, thus God indeed determined their future for good reasons. And set them free.
You might as well have just spoken in tongues to me, Lee. What you’re saying makes that much sense to me. You keep making contradictory claims. Let me remind you of what you believe:
I said, “Determinists argue that whether one chooses to marry or not is unconditionally determined by God (as you claim every person's choice to believe in and love God or not is determined by God)." And you replied “Yes to the second choice.” That is, you believe God unconditionally determines every person’s choice to believe in and love God or not. Now, you can hope that all may be saved if you want, but it would help if you possessed a theology that supported such a hope. Presently, you’re wallowing in contradiction. If God unconditionally determines people to not love him and so go to hell, you can’t also meaningfully claim that God “designs” these same people for salvation.
quote:
Tom: I’d never concede that God “apologizes” to people. I’d argue he does express regret. He does say “I regret/I’m sorry that x happened to you.”
Lee: That second statement was what I was after, and I don't think that's in the Bible. Not with the people the tower of Siloam fell on, nor the people whose blood Pilate mixed with their sacrifices, nor the boy who had been demonized from an early age, nor the people in Jerusalem who would face destruction.
Read the rest of the Bible.
quote:
Tom: This is not hard Lee. Come on. People have ALREADY died refusing to love God. Lots of ‘em. What specific good was fulfilled in by their refusing to love God?
Lee: I hope they may still repent:
They’re DEAD, Lee! The dead ones for crying out loud. The ones frying downstairs in hell. OK? I’m talking about THEM. Now, YOU believe their rejecting God’s love to the very end of life and dying in that unrepentant state was determined for them by God for some specific good that makes God NOT responsible for determining their evil. Now, I’m asking you to tell us what that GOOD is.
Lee: REV 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" This is spoken by the glorified church, on her wedding day, to people who are thirsty. And I don't think she is inviting herself!
Tom: Oh my goodness. Another worm hole that’s gonna carry this thread of to another galaxy. Another cul-de-sac. Please don’t tell me that glorified believers evangelize the unsaved dead. Please don’t say that, Lee. Please, no.
Rev. 22.17 is addressed to the readers of the letter, not to the unsaved dead, and to us if we read them. Don’t make this a Twilight Zone episode!
quote:
Lee: Well, if I see someone careening toward a cliff, and I could save them with 99.999999% probability if I wanted to, then I should make that effort. Why doesn't God do that, in the most critical area of salvation?
Tom: You should answer this Lee. It’s your problem. You’re the one who believes God unconditionally determines everybody’s choice regarding salvation.
Lee: Yes, again, I hope that all may be saved. Now it's your turn...
And your use of Rev. 22 makes me think you believe those in hell may yet be saved. Unless you’re a universalist and believe that all those in hell will eventually be saved, your hope is an incoherent one given your determinism. So, assuming you're not a universalist, and assuming that you're aware many millions have taken their hatred of God to the grave, let me again ask:
What good is fulfilled in their rejection of God's love?
You haven't come close to offering an answer.
Lee: If a person is about to commit suicide, shouldn't you try and stop them?
Tom: Oh yes, unless of course I had determined them to commit suicide, in which case I'd just stand and watch.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
SwanLake
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 6/9/2004 1:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
If a person is about to commit suicide, shouldn't you try and stop them?
What if they're 99 and dying of lung cancer induced by a lifetime of smoking?
See why your car careening analogy isn't applicable? People live a lifetime of choices, millions of choices. Should God step in every time they make a bad choice?
Do you override every bad descision your children make? Shouldn't He allow them to suffer the consequences of bad choices and learn to adjust and start making right choices which is the mark of becoming a mature adult?
After a lifetime of bad choices, why would they even want to be dragged into eternity against their will?
Why does the father in the prodigal son story let his son leave?
freedom
Why doesn't he intervene to prevent his son making that bad choice?
freedom
God is the father in the prodigal son story, He allows freedom to His sons, some choose to stay, some choose to leave, some, having left, come to their senses and return. Some never return.
Now do you want to make the case that relationships of love don't work best with freedom?
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/9/2004 3:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Lee: Dr. Boyd explains the area of relationships with God through the invincible chess master analogy. ... The whole point of the analogy is that God wins no matter how people choose.
Tom: No, the point is that there are enough choices over the course of the game over which to distribute the probability that Kasparov will win.
Then Kasparov wins if he takes one pawn? Maybe you take all his other pieces, but one pawn means he wins?
quote:
If you need 100% to justify the use of “invincible,” then don’t use invincible.
It's not turning out nearly that way, though, the world is about 33% Christian, that's not anywhere near 100%. And thus I don't think this implies an overall win, no matter how people choose.
quote:
Lee: Why can't believers choose freely, if God says they can?
Tom: The problem is one of consistency for you. People CAN choose freely (i.e., libertarianly) if God says they can. So why recognize this for marriage and deny it for salvation when the Bible applies the same freedom language for both?
The Bible doesn't, though!
RO 6:20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.
A slave to sin does what sin says do. No freedom there.
GAL 4:8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods.
But believers are free. There's a difference!
GAL 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
quote:
Lee: Yes, not determined by God the Father, he gives authority to Jesus, and Jesus gives authority to believers...
Tom: I have no idea what you just said.
Just like when your boss gives you authority when you go on a business trip.
LK 19:19 His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'
I don't understand why you don't understand what I mean, here.
quote:
Lee (giving an example of something that is NOT determined by God…I think): REV 3:21 To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.
Tom: To overcome is to persevere in salvation. But you’ve already made clear above that God alone determines who gets saved. You can’t now offer perseverance as an example of an event that is not determined by God.
No, that was an example of Jesus giving real authority to believers. My example of something not determined by God is the choice mentioned by Paul, to marry or not.
quote:
Tom: Yes, Lee, we have to play the game God placed us in and play according to the rules God set up. There is no reason to believe God cannot, if he wishes to, create a game which is based on libertarian free will, moral responsibility, and partly open in its outcome.
I agree that it's not self-contradictory. But it contradicts the Bible:
GAL 4:24 ... for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.
GAL 4:26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
quote:
Tom: If God unconditionally determines people to not love him and so go to hell, you can’t also meaningfully claim that God “designs” these same people for salvation.
If people can repent after judgment, then it's not inconsistent to believe that God can save all people.
REV 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!"
This is the glorified church, on her wedding day, inviting people who are thirsty, and she's not inviting herself, I think...
quote:
Tom: Rev. 22.17 is addressed to the readers of the letter, not to the unsaved dead, and to us if we read them.
But then she's inviting herself, through a kind of time machine, or something. Like the man in the science fiction story, who went back in time, to arrange for his grandparents to meet and get married, so he could be born. Now that's a Twilight Zone interpretation!
quote:
Tom: Now, YOU believe their rejecting God’s love to the very end of life and dying in that unrepentant state was determined for them by God for some specific good that makes God NOT responsible for determining their evil. Now, I’m asking you to tell us what that GOOD is.
1PE 4:6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.
That's good! Why does God cause any pain? Because it's for a good purpose. And he bears that pain, too, to show us that he cares, and that he knows the outcome is good.
quote:
Lee: And your use of Rev. 22 makes me think you believe those in hell may yet be saved. Unless you’re a universalist and believe that all those in hell will eventually be saved, your hope is an incoherent one given your determinism.
I am willing to hope that all will be saved, and thus the end result will be good. I believe God ordains salvation, and that he wants to save everyone, and that he has the power to save everyone, and thus conclude that we may hope that all will be saved:
1TI 4:10 ... we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.
quote:
Lee: If a person is about to commit suicide, shouldn't you try and stop them?
Tom: Oh yes, unless of course I had determined them to commit suicide, in which case I'd just stand and watch.
But not if you were good! And the OV holds that God is good. So why doesn't God arrange 99.99999% probability for everyone to be saved, even if they set out to commit spiritual suicide? Since we think a person should be stopped from committing physical suicide...
quote:
Swanlake: Why does the father in the prodigal son story let his son leave?
freedom
But the son was "found"! He didn't find himself, even though he came home on his own feet. In the area of salvation, we are lost sheep, and the Shepherd sets out, and finds us:
LK 15:4 ... and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?
No lost sheep gets away forever, it seems! And none of them find their way back, either...
quote:
Kingsaint: I thought your point was that God cannot rig history because there are too many human decisions to factor. I claim that this would limit God's sovereignty by making it easy for God--one settled world is easy to run. But, if this isn't your point then please state it again.
No, God can certainly manage any number of possibilities. We can think of a God like that, and God is beyond that ability:
ISA 40:28 ... and his understanding no one can fathom.
And I believe God does give freedom to believers...
2CO 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
SwanLake
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 6/9/2004 3:41 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
quote:
Swanlake: Why does the father in the prodigal son story let his son leave?
freedom
But the son was "found"! He didn't find himself, even though he came home on his own feet.
But he did "find" himself:
Luke 15:17 "But when he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger!
18 'I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight;
19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men."'
20 So he got up and came to his father."
He came to his senses and headed for home on his own. His choice.
Your "careening car" analogy isn't applicable.
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/10/2004 2:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee: Then Kasparov wins if he takes one pawn? Maybe you take all his other pieces, but one pawn means he wins?
Tom: Son of a cotton pickin rackin frackin! (That’s my Yosemitee Sam imitation.) Lee, Lee, Lee. I’m beginning to think you don’t WANT to get this. I don’t care if you agree with open theism or its use of the chess analogy or not. But you should be able at least to accurately articulate it for discussion’s sake.
Kasparov doesn’t win if he only takes one of his opponent’s pawns, or by any other one particular move ‘during’ the game. He wins by placing his opponent in check-mate. Don’t you play chess? And God’s placing his opponent (Satan) in check-mate means having SOME people over the course of history love God. God has a 99.999 (to the stars and back) probability of getting SOME to love him over the course of history. That’s winning. Now, even if God lost the game and called it quits without ever getting a single person to love him, his life would go on. He would not be metaphysically defeated. God himself is not at stake in this debate. So relax.
quote:
Tom: If you need 100% to justify the use of “invincible,” then don’t use invincible.
Lee: It's not turning out nearly that way, though, the world is about 33% Christian, that's not anywhere near 100%. And thus I don't think this implies an overall win, no matter how people choose.
Arhghghghgh! Cotton pickin rackin frackin son of a---!!  The actual number of Christians doesn’t HAVE to be 99.9% of all human beings in order for the 99.99 (forever nine’s) probability that SOME people will belive to hold true. Only SOME have to believe.
quote:
Lee: Why can't believers choose freely, if God says they can?
Tom: The problem is one of consistency for you. People CAN choose freely (i.e., libertarianly) if God says they can. So why recognize this for marriage and deny it for salvation when the Bible applies the same freedom language for both?
Lee: The Bible doesn't, though!
RO 6:20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. A slave to sin does what sin says do. No freedom there.
Stick nabbin rackin cotton pickin son of a frackin…! Lee, saying unbelievers are free to say ‘yes’ to God’s offer of salvation doesn’t mean saying they’re free to save themselves. We can say ‘yes’ to what God says we can say yes to, and God says we can say yes to HIS INVITATION, even as sinners. That God “invites” sinners and holds them accountable for their response assumes their ability to say ‘yes’ to this much—God’s invitation.
To show how your understanding of “slaves of sin” is off, all one needs to do is apply the same understanding to “slaves of righteousness.” You must understand both equally, that is, you have to understand them on the same level, apply the same approach to both. So if you insist that “slaves of sin” means unbelievers cannot possibly do anything but sin, then “slaves of righteousness” must mean believers cannot possibly do anything but righteousness. But we know believers can and do perform unrighteous acts. They do sin. So, whatever “slaves of righteousness” means, it doesn’t’ mean believers aren’t able to say ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to God’s gracious offer. The same applies to “slaves of sin.”
quote:
Lee: Yes, not determined by God the Father, he gives authority to Jesus, and Jesus gives authority to believers...
Tom: I have no idea what you just said.
Lee: Just like when your boss gives you authority when you go on a business trip.
LK 19:19 His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'
I don't understand why you don't understand what I mean, here.
I asked you if there is ever any event which is NOT determined by God. You answered ‘yes’ but your explanation (delegated authority) suggested to me that your real answer is “no” because you equally claim that God’s sovereignty means “God’s will is always accomplished.” Never mind.
I don’t have a problem with the kind of “say-so” or “authority” my boss delegates to me to make choices, for I determine those choices. I’m delegated the sort of freedom to make self-determining choices. This sort of freedom alone makes sense of my boss holding me accountable for my choices.
quote:
Lee (giving an example of something that is NOT determined by God…I think): REV 3:21 To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.
Tom: To overcome is to persevere in salvation. But you’ve already made clear above that God alone determines who gets saved. You can’t now offer perseverance as an example of an event that is not determined by God.
Lee: No, that was an example of Jesus giving real authority to believers. My example of something not determined by God is the choice mentioned by Paul, to marry or not.
Son of a rackin cotton pickin hackin!!!
So then, a believer’s choice to get married or not is a libertarian choice? Is that what you’re saying? Do believers have libertarian free will in other areas, or just with regard to marriage?
quote:
Tom: Yes, Lee, we have to play the game God placed us in and play according to the rules God set up. There is no reason to believe God cannot, if he wishes to, create a game which is based on libertarian free will, moral responsibility, and partly open in its outcome.
Lee: I agree that it's not self-contradictory. But it contradicts the Bible:
GAL 4:24 ... for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.
GAL 4:26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
You can’t do this Lee. You can’t just throw up a couple of verses and claim you’ve made your point, or even argued anything. Your use of Scripture is very frustrating in this regard. There’s little rhyme or reason in your argumentation and use of Scripture. It’s really frustrating to ask you a question and then get nothing but a Scripture verse for an answer. I confess to seeing absolutely nothing in the verses you quote that contradicts the claim that God did in fact create the world with libertarian free will (which you seem to believe believers possess with respect to getting married), moral responsibility, and which is partly open.
quote:
Tom: If God unconditionally determines people to not love him and so go to hell, you can’t also meaningfully claim that God “designs” these same people for salvation.
Lee: If people can repent after judgment, then it's not inconsistent to believe that God can save all people.
REV 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" This is the glorified church, on her wedding day, inviting people who are thirsty, and she's not inviting herself, I think...
You think wrong regarding this verse, but never mind why. My guess is if you are not yet a universalist, you soon will be.
quote:
Tom: Now, YOU believe their rejecting God’s love to the very end of life and dying in that unrepentant state was determined for them by God for some specific good that makes God NOT responsible for determining their evil. Now, I’m asking you to tell us what that GOOD is.
Lee: 1PE 4:6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.
That's good! Why does God cause any pain? Because it's for a good purpose. And he bears that pain, too, to show us that he cares, and that he knows the outcome is good.
You didn’t answer the question. What is the good that is fulfilled in people going to hell? What is the specific good here?
quote:
Tom: And your use of Rev. 22 makes me think you believe those in hell may yet be saved. Unless you’re a universalist and believe that all those in hell will eventually be saved, your hope is an incoherent one given your determinism.
Lee: I am willing to hope that all will be saved, and thus the end result will be good. I believe God ordains salvation, and that he wants to save everyone, and that he has the power to save everyone, and thus conclude that we may hope that all will be saved
Given your syllogism, you must conclude not that we may “hope” that all will be saved, you must conclude that all will definitely be saved. You are a universalist. That changes the dynamics of the discussion somewhat.
quote:
Lee: If a person is about to commit suicide, shouldn't you try and stop them?
Tom: Oh yes, unless of course I had determined them to commit suicide, in which case I'd just stand and watch.
Lee: But not if you were good!
Then ‘good’ has lost its meaning. If good means unconditionally predetermining people to go to hell, what would “evil” mean? If good means unconditionally determining the torture of small children, what would acting with evil in their regard mean?
You may want to argue that since all are eventually saved (universalism) that God’s justified in unconditionally determining their torture, sin, and evil now. I don’t buy that at all, but I understand the pressure you are under from a view of providence that demands that ‘God’s will always be accomplished.’
Lee: And the OV holds that God is good. So why doesn't God arrange 99.99999% probability for everyone to be saved, even if they set out to commit spiritual suicide? Since we think a person should be stopped from committing physical suicide...
Tom: Because of the sort of freedom required by love. A relationship can’t be a mutually personal and loving one if one party in the relationship is determining the love of the other party. This is my chief objection to universalism. I don’t see how it doesn’t reduce down to the denial that for finite beings such as ourselves, love requires freedom.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/10/2004 5:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Swanlake and Tom,
quote:
Swanlake: Why does the father in the prodigal son story let his son leave?
freedom...
Lee: But the son was "found"!
Swanlake: But he did "find" himself:
Luke 15:17 "But when he came to his senses
Yes, he did, but "come to your senses," or "come to yourself," is not the same as "find yourself." And I'm not sure you come to your senses on your own. Surely you are not saying the son went looking for himself somehow?
And the father sums up the story by saying he was found, thus we may take God's initiative as primary here, and view the son's return as the result of God's seeking him, like the lost sheep, or the lost coin. All of these are said to be "found," not finding themselves.
quote:
Lee: Then Kasparov wins if he takes one pawn? Maybe you take all his other pieces, but one pawn means he wins?
Tom: God’s placing his opponent (Satan) in check-mate means having SOME people over the course of history love God. God has a 99.999 (to the stars and back) probability of getting SOME to love him over the course of history. That’s winning.
If winning means winning one person, then I think my analogy is not far off, though. To win one person doesn't correspond very well to checkmating the devil, I think, if you really set out to win them all.
quote:
RO 6:20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.
Lee: A slave to sin does what sin says do. No freedom there.
Tom: saying unbelievers are free to say ‘yes’ to God’s offer of salvation doesn’t mean saying they’re free to save themselves. We can say ‘yes’ to what God says we can say yes to, and God says we can say yes to HIS INVITATION, even as sinners.
Where is that verse, though? I find the opposite:
JN 12:40 "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."
2CO 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
quote:
Tom: To show how your understanding of “slaves of sin” is off, all one needs to do is apply the same understanding to “slaves of righteousness.” You must understand both equally, that is, you have to understand them on the same level, apply the same approach to both. So if you insist that “slaves of sin” means unbelievers cannot possibly do anything but sin, then “slaves of righteousness” must mean believers cannot possibly do anything but righteousness.
Yes, that's a good point. But there is room within righteousness, but no choices for slaves to sin. There is a paradox here, serving God still allows real choices, thus the restrictions of righteousness still leave some room:
1CO 7:22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave.
But both are free, if they are believers:
JN 8:32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
But not unbelievers:
JN 8:33-34 They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin."
There's a difference!
quote:
Tom: I don’t have a problem with the kind of “say-so” or “authority” my boss delegates to me to make choices, for I determine those choices. I’m delegated the sort of freedom to make self-determining choices. This sort of freedom alone makes sense of my boss holding me accountable for my choices.
Yes, believers are accountable for their choices, and they do have real freedom, I believe both are true:
GAL 5:13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.
quote:
Lee: My example of something not determined by God is the choice mentioned by Paul, to marry or not.
Tom: So then, a believer’s choice to get married or not is a libertarian choice? Is that what you’re saying? Do believers have libertarian free will in other areas, or just with regard to marriage?
I don't say libertarian free will, for if believers sin, they go back into bondage until they repent (Rom. 6:16). But yes, there are other choices (1 Cor. 9:4, for instance), what is not forbidden is infinite, what is forbidden is finite, like the fence around the tree in the garden.
quote:
Tom: There is no reason to believe God cannot, if he wishes to, create a game which is based on libertarian free will, moral responsibility, and partly open in its outcome.
Lee: I agree that it's not self-contradictory. But it contradicts the Bible:
GAL 4:24 ... for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.
GAL 4:26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
Tom: You can’t do this Lee.
Sure I can! I'm using my freedom... 
quote:
Tom: I confess to seeing absolutely nothing in the verses you quote that contradicts the claim that God did in fact create the world with libertarian free will ... moral responsibility, and which is partly open.
Believers are free, unbelievers are not, that was what those verses were intended to illustrate, just continuing to state this point, but maybe I should have made it clear that this was another way to restate my view here. Thus no LFW for anybody, no freedom at all for unbelievers, though there is responsibility, that's another topic! And here is a verse about the open future:
ISA 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.
That's in a specific prophecy, but I think it's a general statement, and does not refer only to Cyrus.
quote:
Tom: What is the good that is fulfilled in people going to hell? What is the specific good here?
What is the good of people getting small bumps and bruises? Can God have a good purpose for that? I think he can. And I believe that there is no limit to God's ability to bring good out of suffering, he did it at the cross.
quote:
Tom: Given your syllogism, you must conclude not that we may “hope” that all will be saved, you must conclude that all will definitely be saved.
Actually! I believe that God may resolve these dilemmas in an unexpected way. Maybe God can change the past! Not that I'm really proposing that, but I do expect the unexpected here, that both the eternal punishment and the "all in all" verses will be fulfilled. But I do think that we are allowed to hope that all will be saved, we will be fully satisfied, both with God's justice, and with his mercy.
quote:
Lee: If a person is about to commit suicide, shouldn't you try and stop them?
Tom: Oh yes, unless of course I had determined them to commit suicide, in which case I'd just stand and watch.
Lee: But not if you were good!
Tom: Then ‘good’ has lost its meaning. If good means unconditionally predetermining people to go to hell, what would “evil” mean? If good means unconditionally determining the torture of small children, what would acting with evil in their regard mean?
"Good" here meant saving someone from death, even if they were trying to end their life. Whether God can be good, in planning suffering, we addressed above. That's a different question!
quote:
Lee: And the OV holds that God is good. So why doesn't God arrange 99.99999% probability for everyone to be saved, even if they set out to commit spiritual suicide? Since we think a person should be stopped from committing physical suicide...
Tom: Because of the sort of freedom required by love. A relationship can’t be a mutually personal and loving one if one party in the relationship is determining the love of the other party. This is my chief objection to universalism. I don’t see how it doesn’t reduce down to the denial that for finite beings such as ourselves, love requires freedom.
Physical suicide stops a relationship, though. "I want this person to freely love me, so I cannot stop their trip over this cliff, nor try and bring them to their senses."
People don't love on their own, we are able to love after we've been given the love by God:
1JN 4:19 We love because he first loved us.
If God doesn't stop us, and show us his love, we won't have the love to love him back. We need more than a choice, we need the love, too.
1JN 4:10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us...
We are free as long as we love God, but believers can't stop loving God. Are you saying that people in heaven can stop loving God, because love must be free? And sin, and fall out of heaven, and thus are insecure forever?
Blessings,
Lee
P.S. You do a good Yosemite Sam imitation. My Sam imitation is not so good. I can't even imitate Yosemite...
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/10/2004 5:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee-
I noticed you played the "paradox" trump card to avoid having to explain yourself and you continue to quote verses as your answer to requests for actual explanations and arguments. I'm done chasing you around the cul-de-sac. Take care bro.
Peace,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
cbost6421
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 65
| Posted 6/30/2004 10:12 AM (GMT -6) | | I think we can say that God can Honestly Now say that someone will be saved, since they have.
Think of it this way, God's chess moves will ultimately win, by win I don't regard that as specifically someone's "salvation" (though it includes that) but to the fact that evil will be eventually overcame and that good will reign forever while those who are evil will suffer for their evil forever. God will "win" the chess match in this sense.
As for the matter of personal salvation, I personally believe GOd will pursue people until they either give in or solidify in thier choice, in which case God is not going to violate the gift He's given.
I think we this in the Hardening of Pharoh's heart. Ggod gives Him a choice, Pharoh hardens his heart. God keeps giving the choice, each tine Pharoh's heart is Hardened. You might even say that God showed Grace which HArdened His heart, because pharoh was so bent against grace. Pharoh solidifys his choice by dying at the hands of God, in the Red Sea.
Such Personal Salvation and Puruits of God is not what I think is meant by the "Chess Master" Analogy.
GOd Bless us All!,
Chuck
check Out my Open Theism Site...
www.westga.edu/~stu59980/openviewtheism.html
stu.westga.edu/~cbost1/openviewtheism.html
"those who pray truly are theologians and those who are theologians pray truly"
-Evagrios The Solidary | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/30/2004 1:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Chuck,
quote:
I think we can say that God can Honestly Now say that someone will be saved, since they have.
Yes he can! But it wasn't guaranteed, according to the OV.
quote:
Think of it this way, God's chess moves will ultimately win, by win I don't regard that as specifically someone's "salvation" (though it includes that) but to the fact that evil will be eventually overcame and that good will reign forever while those who are evil will suffer for their evil forever. God will "win" the chess match in this sense.
But then he wins regardless of how he chooses! Whatever God does, if he takes whoever will come, then he wins, by this definition. How is winning in this way a special demonstration of God's wisdom and strength, though?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
| 46 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:05 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 |
|
|