 |
| 
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/30/2004 11:03 AM (GMT -6) |   | A question was raised in another thread about the invincible chess master analogy in Divine Foreknowledge, so here is a thread just for that discussion. And here is the analogy:
"Though she cannot be certain of how her opponent will move, for her opponent is a free agent, she is certain she can wisely out-maneuver him. ... God neither predestines nor foreknows everything as settled but is nevertheless certain of victory because of his divine wisdom. It is the only model in which God wins by virtue of his wisdom, creativity, and problem-solving intelligence. ... To simply control or possess information about the future requires no virtuous attributes." (Divine Foreknowledge, pp. 44-45).
quote:
Lee: ... on the same page as the chess master analogy, I read, "God demonstrates his sovereign power by empowering others to enter into a loving relationship with him."
Tom: “Empowering” here isn’t irresistible.
It is if the chess master undertakes "a loving relationship" as his or her primary purpose! If that's what winning means here.
quote:
Lee: The next paragraph starts, "It takes a truly sovereign God to make himself vulnerable like this." And the next paragraph says, "At this juncture an analogy might help demonstrate this point." And then we have the chess master analogy (Divine Foreknowledge, pp. 44-45). It seems clear to me that Dr. Boyd includes salvation, choosing to love God, as one of the main applications of this analogy.
Tom: ... God cannot guarantee that a particular individual will certainly be saved even if he can guarantee that overall SOME will be saved. When it comes to guaranteeing future outcomes, the only guarantee Kasparov can rightly make at the outset of the game is that he’ll win the game.
Then what does it mean for God to win, in the critical area of mens' salvation? If a company president announces "for this quarter, our goal will be to make as much money as we can," then at the end of the quarter, he asks his accountant, "how much did we make?" Let's say the accountant responds, "$50.27!" Then the president says "we won!" No, I don't think that's what winning means, it means more than just "I'll make my best effort, and take whatever results I get."
quote:
And I’m certain Doc would agree that the chess analogy doesn’t describe how God can squeeze out of us the free choice to love him. We can always choose not to love him. Those are the rules of the game of life.
Yes, I think Doc would say that, too. So I wonder what was in mind, when "a loving relationship" purpose was further explained by the chess master analogy.
quote:
Lee: Then what, in your view, is the goal? What is the victory that God will certainly achieve? As far as it concerns human choices...
Tom: That he will succeed in persuading SOME to love him forever.
So are you saying that God can guarantee that at least one person will repent and believe? Then how can he do that, if it involves human choices (see the next question).
quote:
Lee: But I think this problem affects every prophecy that depends on human decisions, and every plan that God makes that requires one decision, and not another. That's pretty comprehensive.
Tom: If the prophecy is a single libertarian choice, then it’s a conditional prophecy and thus its occurrence is not inevitable.
Thus God cannot guarantee that even one soul will come to him. And God cannot guarantee that Cyrus will ascend to the throne, and make the proclamation he must make. This prophecy must be conditional, "I will try my best to have a man named Cyrus issue a proclamation etc." But I don't think God is saying that here...
quote:
Lee: I agree that a known choice is therefore determined. But that doesn't necessarily make it not free! As in God's foreknown decisions.
Tom: You keep saying this, but there’s no parallel between God foreknowing his own freely made unconditional choices and God foreknowing our freely made choices. You’re assuming that since God can foreknow HIS choices and those choices can still be free, God can thus foreknow OUR choices and those choices still be free. But God would only foreknow as certain his own choices if those choices were unconditional; he wouldn’t foreknow his choices where they were conditioned on contingent human choices and events.
This gets in a bit of a tangle. And maybe this belongs back in the Molinism thread. I'm getting my threads tangled up! I was trying to argue from a Molinist perspective, primarily, and show how, on their view, primarily, free-will decisions could be known and yet free. I'm not sure I can defend this from everybodys' viewpoint! Not even my own. Your point is from the OV perspective, so I shall acknowledge that my statement doesn't apply there, and move on to the next point. Back to the chess match!
quote:
Lee: No, but what I was saying is that if God determines any moves, then he is no longer the chess master. Holding a ticket to make just one critical move for your opponent, spoils the whole point of this analogy.
Tom: Depends. If the determination of my opponent’s move was made by me before the game began (i.e., not as a response to the circumstances of the game within the rules of the game) then yes, such a determination lies outside the analogy. But if the determination were made by me ‘in response to’ the flow of the game ‘as it happens’ and ‘within the rules of the game’, then that’s cool. Sometimes a chess master will be able to corner his opponent and leave him only a single option. That’s a sort of determination, but it’s not unconditional.
But by "determines any moves," I was referring to reaching over the board and moving one of your opponent's pieces! That's not chess, nor is it being a chess master.
quote:
God may sometimes determine the non-moral choices of human beings far ahead of time (like Cyrus). This lies outside the chess analogy...
But again, I think Dr. Boyd intended to include salvation as part of the application of this analogy.
quote:
Lee: I believe that accepting the gospel is not a free choice…I agree that a known choice is therefore determined, but that doesn't necessarily make it not free!
Tom: See any problem in these two statements of yours?
Maybe it's time to start a new thread. 
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 5/30/2004 12:48 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Lee: ... on the same page as the chess master analogy, I read, "God demonstrates his sovereign power by empowering others to enter into a loving relationship with him."
Tom: “Empowering” here isn’t irresistible.
Lee: It is if the chess master undertakes "a loving relationship" as his or her primary purpose! If that's what winning means here.
Tom: An “irresistible loving relationship” is a contradiction of terms and so incoherent. To my mind your saying “God determines that we irresistibly choose to love him” is like saying, “Square circle with three sides makes silent noise.”
Try to make a distinction between God’s having as a goal “having people choose to love him” and “having a specific individual love him.” Both are goals. The former can be guaranteed (and is analogous to God’s winning the game of chess; i.e., SOME people over the course of history choose to love God and spend eternity with him). The latter cannot be. It’s an entirely different discussion, but you know I don’t believe God can “irresistibly determine” for any particular individual that that individual choose to love God. So though I think it’s possible for God to be sure that over the course of history there will be SOME who will choose to love him (God ultimately wins), I don’t think it’s possible for God to either unconditionally determine or guarantee that any specific individual will in fact choose to love him (God loses some pieces during play).
quote:
Tom: ... God cannot guarantee that a particular individual will certainly be saved even if he can guarantee that overall SOME will be saved. When it comes to guaranteeing future outcomes, the only guarantee Kasparov can rightly make at the outset of the game is that he’ll win the game.
Lee: Then what does it mean for God to win, in the critical area of mens' salvation?
Tom: Women too. Don’t forget them.
God doesn’t win in the area of each individual’s salvation. Many refuse God’s love to the very end don’t they? These go to hell (whatever that is) don’t they? In the case of their salvation, God loses. Where God wins is in successfully persuading SOME (Many! Hopefully many more!) to love him and live with him. In the case of their salvation, God wins. God both loses and wins during the game. But since some choose to love and live with him, God wins the match.
Lee: If a company president announces "for this quarter, our goal will be to make as much money as we can," then at the end of the quarter, he asks his accountant, "how much did we make?" Let's say the accountant responds, "$50.27!" Then the president says "we won!" No, I don't think that's what winning means, it means more than just "I'll make my best effort, and take whatever results I get."
Tom: It all depends on where you’re standing. Luke tells us all heaven rejoices over the salvation of ONE. But what if a million perished the same day only one was saved? Did God win or lose? Well, both. He won in the life of the one who received salvation and he lost in the lives of the million who perished. We’re still IN the game, Lee. As long as God and we are in the game, some pieces (I hate the chess analogy because it’s impersonal, but you know what I’m getting at) make it and others don’t. Those that don’t are a genuine loss. Those that do are a genuine win. These “loses” and “wins” play out during the game. They aren’t the ultimate loss or victory that’s decided when the game ends. So, try to make the distinction between winning the move and winning the game (or losing the move and losing the game). Winning the game for God will be having SOME spend eternity in loving relationship with him (and he already has that!). Losing the game would be having NONE choose to love God.
Lee: So are you saying that God can guarantee that at least one person will repent and believe? Then how can he do that, if it involves human choices (see the next question).
Tom: God can guarantee that at least one will repent and believe. He can’t guarantee WHO that one will be. Talk to any car insurance company. Ask them if they can guarantee that at least ONE person they insure will have an accident this year. They’ll answer “Sure! We can guarantee that three to four hundred of our insured drivers will have an accident this year!” Then ask them, “Do you determine the wills and driving habits of all your drivers? Do you determine exactly who and how many get in a wreck?” They’ll answer, “Heck naw! We don’t determine car accidents! Drivers are free individuals. We don’t interfere in their free will. Each one is free and responsible for how they drive.” Then ask them, “So how can you guarantee that 300 to 400 of your insured drivers will be in an accident this year if it involves human choices?”
You’re making the assumption which the chess analogy was designed to dispel, namely, you’re assuming that unless an insurance company is determining the wills of all its insured drivers, it can’t possibly guarantee that any of its drivers will be in an accident this year. But this is patently false. In other words, you’re assuming that unless God determines the will of human beings irresistibly, he can’t possibly guarantee that any human beings will freely, on their own, without irresistible grace and unconditional determination, choose to love him.
quote:
Lee: But I think this problem affects every prophecy that depends on human decisions, and every plan that God makes that requires one decision, and not another. That's pretty comprehensive.
Tom: If the prophecy is a single libertarian choice, then it’s a conditional prophecy and thus its occurrence is not inevitable.
Lee: Thus God cannot guarantee that even one soul will come to him. And God cannot guarantee that Cyrus will ascend to the throne, and make the proclamation he must make. This prophecy must be conditional, "I will try my best to have a man named Cyrus issue a proclamation etc."
Tom: Dude, we’ve gone around this several times now.
No, God cannot guarantee that a particular individual, let’s call her Sally, will in fact come to love him. But this doesn’t mean that God can’t know for certain that SOME individuals will come to love him. Averaged out over time, statistically (remember the insurance agency above?), given God’s love and patience, SOME will certainly come to love God. God can’t know for sure WHICH individuals will or will not ultimately choose to love him. He can’t be certain with respect to any single person, but he can know that SOME will choose to say ‘yes’.
Naming Cyrus and raising him up as king CAN BE UNCONDITIONALLY DETERMINED BY GOD because it’s NOT A CHOICE TO LOVE. God can determine 200 years before his birth that when the time and circumstances are right, God will tread irresistibly all over the libertarian free will of some mother and father and have them name their boy “Cyrus.” He can then tread all over Cyrus’ free will and determine his vocation, so that he becomes a king instead of a theologian or a rock star. This is totally fine since God doesn’t hold Cyrus morally accountable for being named Cyrus or for being a king. Get it?
Lee: But by "determines any moves," I was referring to reaching over the board and moving one of your opponent's pieces! That's not chess, nor is it being a chess master.
Tom: Quite so. But then I don’t claim that the chess analogy accounts for ALL of God’s actions. I don’t in principle have any objection to his unconditionally determining some choice or action of ours. It’s holding us accountable for such actions that is reprehensible to me.
quote:
Tom: God may sometimes determine the non-moral choices of human beings far ahead of time (like Cyrus). This lies outside the chess analogy...
Lee: But again, I think Dr. Boyd intended to include salvation as part of the application of this analogy.
You’re misunderstanding Doc. Above I said, “I’m certain Doc would agree that the chess analogy doesn’t describe how God can squeeze out of us the free choice to love him. We can always choose not to love him. Those are the rules of the game of life.” You replied, “Yes, I think Doc would say that, too. So I wonder what was in mind, when "a loving relationship" purpose was further explained by the chess master analogy.”
Others can try to explain this, Lee. I don’t seem to be doing a good job at it. Here’s my last try—. God’s purpose for all human beings is “loving relationship.” If only ONE chooses to love God (and we already have myriads upon myriads who have chosen to love him), God wins the match as far as I’m concerned. The human and the divine are forever linked in loving relationship. I have no idea what the minimum number of loving responses would draw the line in God’s mind between winning and losing the match. Point is, winning the match doesn’t require that EVERYBODY make it.
I don’t think God unconditionally determines who loves him and who doesn’t love him. I don’t even think such a determination is metaphysically possible for God. Anyhow, not being able to determine any particular individual’s choice to love him doesn’t mean God is unable to know for certain that SOME individuals will over the course of the game say yes to him (as the above I hope shows). If Doc included salvation as part of the application of the chess analogy, it is in the sense I just described and not in the sense of God’s being able, as a chess master, to guarantee any particular person’s salvation. You keep trying to place the salvation of some specific individual as constituting “winning the match.” That’s not possible. Winning the match is having SOME choose to love God without specifying ahead of time which ones. And God can guarantee this without unconditionally determining any single individual’s choice to love him.
quote:
Lee: I believe that accepting the gospel is not a free choice…I agree that a known choice is therefore determined, but that doesn't necessarily make it not free!
Tom: See any problem in these two statements of yours?
Lee: Maybe it's time to start a new thread.
Tom: A light at the end of the tunnel?
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/30/2004 3:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tom,
Thanks for your reply! I say in response ... knight to queen's-bishop-four!
quote:
Try to make a distinction between God’s having as a goal “having people choose to love him” and “having a specific individual love him.” Both are goals. The former can be guaranteed (and is analogous to God’s winning the game of chess; i.e., SOME people over the course of history choose to love God and spend eternity with him). The latter cannot be.
But how can it be guaranteed that one person will come? People have come, indeed, but how was it guaranteed?
quote:
Lee: If a company president announces "for this quarter, our goal will be to make as much money as we can," then at the end of the quarter, he asks his accountant, "how much did we make?" Let's say the accountant responds, "$50.27!" Then the president says "we won!" No, I don't think that's what winning means, it means more than just "I'll make my best effort, and take whatever results I get."
Tom: Winning the game for God will be having SOME spend eternity in loving relationship with him (and he already has that!). Losing the game would be having NONE choose to love God.
OK, so if our company president heard that they made a penny, they would still have won? But not by consummate skill or effort, even that lone penny was not guaranteed. It is still possible they could have come out at exactly zero. I don't see how our chess master can for sure win even one person, regardless of how people choose.
quote:
Tom: God can guarantee that at least one will repent and believe. He can’t guarantee WHO that one will be. Talk to any car insurance company. Ask them if they can guarantee that at least ONE person they insure will have an accident this year. They’ll answer "Sure!"
Not quite, though! They can estimate, with (say) 99% probability how many accidents will happen. But they can also estimate the probability that no accidents will happen. That probability is not zero! So the outcome is not guaranteed.
quote:
... you’re assuming that unless God determines the will of human beings irresistibly, he can’t possibly guarantee that any human beings will freely, on their own, without irresistible grace and unconditional determination, choose to love him.
Yes, I am assuming that! I still don't see how it can be otherwise.
quote:
Lee: God cannot guarantee that Cyrus will ascend to the throne, and make the proclamation he must make. This prophecy must be conditional, "I will try my best to have a man named Cyrus issue a proclamation etc."
Tom: Naming Cyrus and raising him up as king CAN BE UNCONDITIONALLY DETERMINED BY GOD because it’s NOT A CHOICE TO LOVE. God can determine 200 years before his birth that when the time and circumstances are right, God will tread irresistibly all over the libertarian free will of some mother and father and have them name their boy “Cyrus.”
OK, you seemed to have strayed from this, so that's why I made this point again. Maybe I misunderstood you, though.
quote:
Lee: So I wonder what was in mind, when "a loving relationship" purpose was further explained by the chess master analogy.
Tom: Winning the match is having SOME choose to love God without specifying ahead of time which ones. And God can guarantee this without unconditionally determining any single individual’s choice to love him.
But how about this prophecy, then?
RO 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved...
Here God chooses in advance, he refers to a specific time (when "the full number of the Gentiles has come in"), and he must guarantee the salvation of every Israelite in this group, if one person refuses, that spoils the plan...
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 | | |
|
BADGERVOL
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 27
| Posted 5/30/2004 5:33 PM (GMT -6) | | I have a question for either of you. I'm sorry for interupting, but I am curious. What is the difference if anyone is guarnteed in a mathematical formula or anything for Christ to die on the cross? On one hand some might think that His death would be in vain. Why would it? He loved so much that he was willing to offer this sacrifice regardless of what our reaction to it would be. That's selfless love in my eyes...what's wrong with that? I think it's foolish to hang on to a philosophical "what if" when it involves a set of odds that is so little even by scientific and mathematical terms it would be deemed "impossible" (refering to what if no one believed). There's also the notion of "Well if no one believed what glory would that bring to God." One could argue that the glory was in the offer. One could argue that God is infinitely glorious, so how foolish of us to even think that any of us accepting his offer brings any more glory to someone who is already infinitely glorious.
Just a couple thoughts. Interested in any responses. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/30/2004 8:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: But how can it be guaranteed that one person will come? People have come, indeed, but how was it guaranteed?
Tom: It’s like asking “But how, really ‘how’, can Kasparov guarantee that he’ll beat me at chess?” I suppose it’s because he’s a better player. How is it guaranteed that there will be SOME of a company’s insured drivers who wreck their cars this year? It’s guaranteed, I suppose, in the combined probabilities of all the drivers. Some of the drivers are very bad drivers who have wrecked their cars twice a year for the past five years. Some of the drivers are excellent drivers who have never had an accident in their life. Combine all the individual probabilities and you get a group probability.
quote:
Lee: If a company president announces "for this quarter, our goal will be to make as much money as we can," then at the end of the quarter, he asks his accountant, "how much did we make?" Let's say the accountant responds, "$50.27!" Then the president says "we won!" No, I don't think that's what winning means, it means more than just "I'll make my best effort, and take whatever results I get."
Tom: Winning the game for God will be having SOME spend eternity in loving relationship with him (and he already has that!). Losing the game would be having NONE choose to love God.
Lee: OK, so if our company president heard that they made a penny, they would still have won? But not by consummate skill or effort, even that lone penny was not guaranteed. It is still possible they could have come out at exactly zero. I don't see how our chess master can for sure win even one person, regardless of how people choose.
Tom: Arghghghghgh! Lee, whether you understand exactly how or not, do you admit that insurance companies are able to accurately predict that there will be SOME drivers who wreck their cars? Yes or no?
Now, if a company a) declared that their purpose was to make ‘as much money as possible’ in a year’s time, and b) they declared that they would do so given rules p, q, r, and s, and c) if they did everything within their power under those rules to make money in the specified amount of time, and consequently d) made only a penny—then yes, it can be said that they fulfilled their goal: they made as much money as possible in a year working under the given rules. And they did so “by consummate skill and effort.” Who are we to say their making only one penny is due to their not giving more of an effort or possessing greater skill? In the case of human companies, it’s often the case that consummate skill is not used and that we’d end the year in the red! Depends on the circumstances, the goals, the rules, etc. Given the game we’re in (the creation of libertarian free will, the risk of sin and evil, the greatest being in the world—God, etc.), I don’t think God had a doubt from the start that over the course of the game SOME would freely choose to love him. The guarantee is grounded in his own consummate skill as a lover and our own consummate needs as finite beings created in his image. God has the advantage! We really DO need him and really ARE created just for him.
Lee: Not quite, though! They can estimate, with (say) 99% probability how many accidents will happen. But they can also estimate the probability that no accidents will happen. That probability is not zero! So the outcome is not guaranteed.
Tom: The probability that absolutely none of their insured drivers (especially the teenagers!) will file a claim IS zero. Pick any car insurance agency out of the yellow pages and call them. I’ll pay your car insurance next year if you find a company that says, “There’s a real chance, however slight, that none of our drivers will file a claim this year.”
So, the exact number is not guaranteed. That the number will be greater than zero is guaranteed.
Tom: ... you’re assuming that unless God determines the will of human beings irresistibly, he can’t possibly guarantee that any human beings will freely, on their own, without irresistible grace and unconditional determination, choose to love him.
Lee: Yes, I am assuming that! I still don't see how it can be otherwise.
Tom: If you want to consistently argue that you don’t see how it can possibly be otherwise, then you’re essentially arguing that all guaranteed outcomes—by definition—can ONLY follow from exhaustively deterministic means, in which case you’ll have to DENY its being true that Kasparov is guaranteed to win against the worst chess player in the world, and you’ll have to DENY its being true that if Michael Jordan played my 11 year old in a game of one-on-one basketball, it would be guaranteed from the opening toss that Jordan would win. I don’t accept that you find these analogies meaningless or that you don’t in fact concede everyday of your life is ways you may not realize that guaranteed outcomes often do follow from other than deterministic means.
quote:
Lee: So I wonder what was in mind, when "a loving relationship" purpose was further explained by the chess master analogy.
Tom: Winning the match is having SOME choose to love God without specifying ahead of time which ones. And God can guarantee this without unconditionally determining any single individual’s choice to love him.
Lee: But how about this prophecy, then? RO 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved...
Tom: Does Rm 11 predict the salvation of a particular individual? No.
Lee: Here God chooses in advance, he refers to a specific time (when "the full number of the Gentiles has come in"), and he must guarantee the salvation of every Israelite in this group, if one person refuses, that spoils the plan...
Tom: You think “all” always means “every one without exception”? That’s obviously not the case.
The interpretation of Rm 11 is hardly a settled issue. It’s quite possible that the “all Israel” to be saved are those Jews saved ‘during’ the time that Gentiles are being saved. It would take another thread on Romans 11 (which might be cool!), but my point is there are valid interpretations of Rm 11 that don’t require “all” here to mean every Jew without exception.
Badgervol: I have a question for either of you. I'm sorry for interupting, but I am curious. What is the difference if anyone is guarnteed in a mathematical formula or anything for Christ to die on the cross? On one hand some might think that His death would be in vain. Why would it? He loved so much that he was willing to offer this sacrifice regardless of what our reaction to it would be. That's selfless love in my eyes...what's wrong with that?
Tom: Jump in at will Badgervol! Excellent point. Throughout the time I’ve been a member on this board, whenever we discussed this issue, even open theists have wanted to argue the real impossibility of the world running its course and God not getting a single person to love, including his finding not a single woman at any time to say yes to being God’s instrument of incarnation. Time runs its course, the end comes: no incarnation and not a single human salvation. Total loses for God.
There are two questions. 1) Is there any reason to believe such a loss is a genuine possibility? and 2) If it was genuinely possible, what would that matter to God? Would God explode if that happened, like Agent Smith at the end of the Matrix? So depending on how one answers (2), she might or might not need to answer (1). I’ve toyed with the idea. Though I think the guarantee that SOME will choose to love God is self-evident in the nature of the circumstances, I don’t have a problem (I don’t think!) admitting the logical possibility that God would outright lose the match. It’s like admitting the since Jordan sometimes DOES miss a single shot and sometimes does fail to block his opponent’s shot, and since my 11 year old sometimes DOES make a shot, that it’s technically a logical possibility that in the course of playing each other Jordan would miss all his shots, my son would make all his. What I mean is, there’s nothing self-contradictory or incoherent in Jordan missing all his shots and my son making at least one shot (to win the match) even if the probability of this happening were zero. It describes a logically coherent state of affairs. Likewise, God’s failing to convince even one human being to respond to him in love describes a logically coherent state of affairs. In that sense it’s possible, even if given the circumstances and rules of the game, the probability is zero. With respect to (2), I don’t think God would explode, cease to exist, or be other than God if not a single person chose to love him. It would be true that God failed to achieve his purposes for creating. I admit I can’t think of a reason for thinking this describes a logically impossible state of affairs, but neither can I think of a reason for believing the actual probability of its happening to be greater than zero.
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/31/2004 7:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Badge and Tom,
quote:
Badgervol: I think it's foolish to hang on to a philosophical "what if" when it involves a set of odds that is so little even by scientific and mathematical terms it would be deemed "impossible" (referring to what if no one believed).
But not many people do believe, it has always been "a remnant," a "little flock." It's even called "impossible," with man (Mt. 19:25), for anybody to be saved. So I think the probabilities are actually the other way around:
1PE 4:18 And, "If it is hard for the righteous to be saved..."
MK 10:24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!"
quote:
One could argue that God is infinitely glorious, so how foolish of us to even think that any of us accepting his offer brings any more glory to someone who is already infinitely glorious.
I agree that Christ's sacrifice brings him glory, in and of himself, and that God is infinitely glorious, without anyone choosing him. But I think that accepting Christ's sacrifice brings him glory, too:
PS 86:9 All the nations you have made will come and worship before you, O Lord; they will bring glory to your name.
It doesn't add to his glory, in a sense, but it does bring him glory for people to come to him, I would say.
quote:
Lee: But how can it be guaranteed that one person will come? People have come, indeed, but how was it guaranteed?
Tom: It’s like asking “But how, really ‘how’, can Kasparov guarantee that he’ll beat me at chess?”
But he can't! He probably will, but I could, just possibly, close my eyes even, and pick up the right piece, make a grandmaster move, and beat Garry Kasparov.
quote:
How is it guaranteed that there will be SOME of a company’s insured drivers who wreck their cars this year? ... whether you understand exactly how or not, do you admit that insurance companies are able to accurately predict that there will be SOME drivers who wreck their cars? Yes or no?
They can predict, I agree! But they can't guarantee. Maybe somebody will push the red missile-button, and the whole world will go up in smoke. Then all of their estimates will fail. Maybe someone will invent an extremely safe collision-avoidance system, that people can buy this year at the local Wal-mart, and their estimates will fail. Maybe all their clients will be good, safe, and lucky drivers this year. It's not impossible! They can't guarantee their estimates. They can even calculate for you the probability (it's not zero!) that their estimate is incorrect...
quote:
The guarantee is grounded in his own consummate skill as a lover and our own consummate needs as finite beings created in his image.
But that does not guarantee God winning regardless of how people choose. How can God guarantee that one person will come, if all may indeed refuse him?
quote:
I’ll pay your car insurance next year if you find a company that says,
“There’s a real chance, however slight, that none of our drivers will file a claim this year.”
I'm not an expert, but I did study some statistics, Tom, and the chance of no accidents is indeed not zero. We can talk statistics if you want to, or you can call your insurance company. My insurance company is State Farm, checks may be sent via PayPal...
quote:
I don’t accept that you find these analogies meaningless or that you don’t in fact concede everyday of your life is ways you may not realize that guaranteed outcomes often do follow from other than deterministic means.
No, I estimate everything! So does everyone else, I think.
PR 27:1 Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring forth.
I can't think of anything in my life that I take as guaranteed, except God's promises. Again, because he controls the world, not because he skillfully out-maneuvers people even though they freely choose.
quote:
Tom: You think “all” always means “every one without exception”? That’s obviously not the case.
The interpretation of Rm 11 is hardly a settled issue. It’s quite possible that the “all Israel” to be saved are those Jews saved ‘during’ the time that Gentiles are being saved.
RO 11:26 ... as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob."
That sounds like every Israelite, without exception!
JER 31:34 "No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
That sounds like every Israelite, too!
And how about Cyrus commanding Jerusalem to be rebuilt? Wasn't that a good deed, and thus a moral choice, determined by God?
What about God saying to Jeremiah "they will not listen" (Jer. 7:27), isn't that a moral choice, even including salvation, for which they are accountable, and yet it is determined by God?
And how about Mr. Pharaoh? When God said he would sin, and harden his heart?
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 5/31/2004 7:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Lee: But how can it be guaranteed that one person will come? People have come, indeed, but how was it guaranteed?
Tom: It’s like asking “But how, really ‘how’, can Kasparov guarantee that he’ll beat me at chess?”
Lee: But he can't! He probably will, but I could, just possibly, close my eyes even, and pick up the right piece, make a grandmaster move, and beat Garry Kasparov.
Tom: Remember I talked about the difference between saying a state of affairs is logically coherent and saying it's probable? If you've studied statistics and you think my eleven year old has a snowball's chance in hell to beat Kasparov, then you should sue the people who taught you. You can close your eyes and by chance make a good move. You can't close your eyes and make 40 or 50 grandmaster moves.
For example, I can argue that dumping a fifty gallon drum of scrabble letters in English from an airplane so that they fall to the ground in such a way that Shakespear's thirteenth Sonnet is perfectly spelled out is a logically coherent state of affairs. That doesn't mean (I don't think) that it's probability is greater than zero. But I can also guarantee that when you dump the letters the Sonnet won't be formed on the ground. Kasparov 'can' guarantee that he'll win every time he plays the world's worst player. But I understand your need to deny this, since admitting that guaranteed outcomes can follow from less than exhaustively determined means is bad news for theological determinism.
Tom: How is it guaranteed that there will be SOME of a company’s insured drivers who wreck their cars this year? ... whether you understand exactly how or not, do you admit that insurance companies are able to accurately predict that there will be SOME drivers who wreck their cars? Yes or no?
Lee: They can predict, I agree! But they can't guarantee. Maybe somebody will push the red missile-button, and the whole world will go up in smoke.
Tom: Don't introduce missile buttons and doom's day scenarios. We're applying the analogy to God. So, given that the year will finish without the world coming to and end, any insurance agency can know for certain that at least one of their insurced drivers will be in an accident. Done deal.
Tom: The guarantee is grounded in his own consummate skill as a lover and our own consummate needs as finite beings created in his image.
Lee: But that does not guarantee God winning regardless of how people choose. How can God guarantee that one person will come, if all may indeed refuse him?
Tom: Because the probabilities are spread out over a wide enough number of choices and span of time.
Lee: RO 11:26 ... as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob." That sounds like every Israelite, without exception!
Tom: It hardly comes close to doing so. Since I undertand Paul to be referring to the crucifixion here, and since many Jews from Jacob have followed their godlessness to hell since then, it doesnt' look like "all" means "every one without exception."
Lee: JER 31:34 "No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." That sounds like every Israelite, too!
Tom: I obviously agree that in the eternal state where evil is done away with, every person in heaven without exception will know the Lord. But we're not talking about the eternal state.
Lee: And how about Cyrus commanding Jerusalem to be rebuilt? Wasn't that a good deed, and thus a moral choice, determined by God?
Tom: I don't think so. Does it need to be? For all we know Cyrus was a real creep through and through; not a choir boy. Do you think his releasing the Jews got him into heaven or something?
Lee: What about God saying to Jeremiah "they will not listen" (Jer. 7:27), isn't that a moral choice, even including salvation, for which they are accountable, and yet it is determined by God?
Tom: This would be a problem if God declared before creation, and unconditionally, that they wouldn't listen. But if his certainty that Israel wouldn't listen is conditioned upon the solidified rebelliousness of the nation at the time, then ther's no problem. If you give a drug addict $50 and walk him in front of a crack house, we can know for certain that they'll buy drugs. Their character has become such that their behavior is predictable.
It's always fun!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/31/2004 1:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tom,
Pawn to king's-bishop-five! No, I take that back...
quote:
Lee: I could, just possibly, close my eyes even, and pick up the right piece, make a grandmaster move, and beat Garry Kasparov.
Tom: Remember I talked about the difference between saying a state of affairs is logically coherent and saying it's probable? If you've studied statistics and you think my eleven year old has a snowball's chance in hell to beat Kasparov, then you should sue the people who taught you. You can close your eyes and by chance make a good move. You can't close your eyes and make 40 or 50 grandmaster moves.
It's very unlikely. But the probability is not zero! Thus no outcome can be absolutely guaranteed. That's my point.
quote:
For example, I can argue that dumping a fifty gallon drum of scrabble letters in English from an airplane so that they fall to the ground in such a way that Shakespeare's thirteenth Sonnet is perfectly spelled out is a logically coherent state of affairs. That doesn't mean ... that it's probability is greater than zero.
Yes it is! Let's make a grid where each letter should appear, and let's assign a probability to each letter falling in the right place, say 1 in 1,000,000. Pretty slim chance! Even with a good pilot. But not zero, yet. Now let's count the letters in the thirteenth sonnet. I shall estimate here, say, 10,000 letters, that should be conservative. Now the probability of your airplane being a poet is now 1 in 1,000,000 to the 10,000 power. I won't write that all out! It would crash the disk, or something. But it's not zero! Zero would be 0 in 1,000,000 to the 10,000 power.
quote:
Lee: They can predict, I agree! But they can't guarantee. Maybe somebody will push the red missile-button, and the whole world will go up in smoke.
Tom: Don't introduce missile buttons and doom's day scenarios. We're applying the analogy to God. So, given that the year will finish without the world coming to an end, any insurance agency can know for certain that at least one of their insured drivers will be in an accident.
OK, let's start with one driver. And keep our hands off the red button. Now the probability of one driver getting through the year accident-free is certainly not zero. It's actually not that bad, I've done it myself, occasionally! Now how about two drivers? The probability goes down, quite a bit, but it's still not zero. How about 200 drivers? Same situation. Similarly for any number of drivers, the probability gets very small, but it never becomes zero.
quote:
Lee: How can God guarantee that one person will come, if all may indeed refuse him?
Tom: Because the probabilities are spread out over a wide enough number of choices and span of time.
That's the ground we've just been covering, in various ways. No, if all may refuse him, then it is indeed possible that none may come.
quote:
Lee: RO 11:26 ... as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob." That sounds like every Israelite, without exception!
Tom: I understand Paul to be referring to the crucifixion here, and since many Jews from Jacob have followed their godlessness to hell since then, it doesn't look like "all" means "every one without exception."
No, all at some time in the future. How that that ever be guaranteed, and this prophecy fulfilled?
quote:
Lee: And how about Cyrus commanding Jerusalem to be rebuilt? Wasn't that a good deed, and thus a moral choice, determined by God?
Tom: I don't think so. Does it need to be? For all we know Cyrus was a real creep through and through; not a choir boy. Do you think his releasing the Jews got him into heaven or something?
I'm not saying salvation, just a moral choice here, something other than choosing a name.
quote:
Lee: What about God saying to Jeremiah "they will not listen" (Jer. 7:27), isn't that a moral choice, even including salvation, for which they are accountable, and yet it is determined by God?
Tom: This would be a problem if God declared before creation, and unconditionally, that they wouldn't listen.
How about to Moses, then?
DT 31:29 For I know that after my death you are sure to become utterly corrupt and to turn from the way I have commanded you.
This was fulfilled in the second generation after Moses, after Joshua died, and all of his generation, then they "did evil in the eyes of the Lord and served the Baals," just as the Lord had said to Moses.
Blessings,
Lee
P.S. You need to go easy on those cigars! Bad for your avatar's health, you know. What brand is that anyway? My avatar wants to know... 
==================================================
"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 5/31/2004 6:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: You can't close your eyes and make 40 or 50 grandmaster moves.
Lee: It's very unlikely. But the probability is not zero! Thus no outcome can be absolutely guaranteed. That's my point.
Tom: It’s a false point. The probability is zero. The proposition, “Lee ‘will not’ beat Kasparov with his [Lee’s] eyes closed” is true. “Lee ‘might and might not’ beat Kasparov with his eyes closed” is false.
Lee: Now let's count the letters in the thirteenth sonnet. I shall estimate here, say, 10,000 letters, that should be conservative.
Tom: 10,000 words in a sonnet? Now I understand why you think the probability is greater than zero! There are 110 words in S’s 13th Sonnet:
O! that you were your self; but, love, you are
No longer yours, than you your self here live:
Against this coming end you should prepare,
And your sweet semblance to some other give:
So should that beauty which you hold in lease
Find no determination; then you were
Yourself again, after yourself's decease,
When your sweet issue your sweet form should bear.
Who lets so fair a house fall to decay,
Which husbandry in honour might uphold,
Against the stormy gusts of winter's day
And barren rage of death's eternal cold?
O! none but unthrifts. Dear my love,
You had a father: let your son say so.
Probability of scrabble letters dumped from an airplane falling to the ground randomly and by chance forming this sonnet: Z-E-R-O.
Lee: No, all at some time in the future. How that that ever be guaranteed, and this prophecy fulfilled?
Tom: It’s indisputable that in Scripture “all” does not always mean “every one without exception.” Language DOES work that way. Deny on if you like.
quote:
Lee: And how about Cyrus commanding Jerusalem to be rebuilt? Wasn't that a good deed, and thus a moral choice, determined by God?
Tom: I don't think so. Does it need to be? For all we know Cyrus was a real creep through and through; not a choir boy. Do you think his releasing the Jews got him into heaven or something?
Lee: I'm not saying salvation, just a moral choice here, something other than choosing a name.
Tom: You’re talking about Cyrus commanding Jerusalem to be rebuilt. And you asked me whether I thought this was a moral choice on Cyrus’ part. I don’t think it has to be, no.
quote:
Lee: What about God saying to Jeremiah "they will not listen" (Jer. 7:27), isn't that a moral choice, even including salvation, for which they are accountable, and yet it is determined by God?
Tom: This would be a problem if God declared before creation, and unconditionally, that they wouldn't listen.
Lee: How about to Moses, then? DT 31:29 For I know that after my death you are sure to become utterly corrupt and to turn from the way I have commanded you.
Tom: Same deal.
Lee: P.S. You need to go easy on those cigars! Bad for your avatar's health, you know. What brand is that anyway? My avatar wants to know.
Tom: Cuban Cohibas!
We’re just standing in two corners saying “I’m right, you’re wrong.” So unless someone wants to come and rescue us, looks like we’re done. You get the last word if you like.
Blessigns,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 6/1/2004 2:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Lee,
I followed you here from the John 6 thread. You may be interested in where the chess analogy comes from. The probablility is not one, but I'm pretty sure the analogy comes from William James. Dr. Boyd does not credit him in Divine Foreknowledge, but he does in Satan and the Problem of Evil, p. 113n35. Here is James: http://csunx4.bsc.edu/bmyers/WJ1.htm The chess analogy discussion is near the end.
James is a wonderful writer (his brother is Henry) and is an open theist, albeit unorthodox. James brings up psychology and I wonder if there is something deeper that drives your argments other than the exegesis of individual passages (which I think you get wrong). Not to commit the psychologizing fallacy, but I wonder if we took care of your deeper needs, whether your need of determinism might not disappear.
For example, assuming that some future prophecies involve human choice, you may want determinism to be true to protect the truthfulness of Scripture (for you argue that non-zero probabilities threaten that, even .000000000000000000000000000001). As Tom pointed out, God will not explode if no one believes, so I really do not think that your deep need is to protect God. God will be God. Lee, be honest and try to do some soul searching, what really bothers you, what is your true fear? It might us help cut to the chase and streamline the conversation. Just an idea.
Shalom bro.
"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 | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/1/2004 3:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Lee: It's very unlikely. But the probability is not zero! Thus no outcome can be absolutely guaranteed. That's my point.
Tom: It’s a false point. The probability is zero.
You can say that! But that is not true. 0.000000001 is not zero. It's not.
quote:
Tom: It’s indisputable that in Scripture “all” does not always mean “every one without exception.” Language DOES work that way. Deny on if you like.
But how are you deciding when it means, "all," then? I agree that sometimes "all" does not mean "all without exception," but I think it does mean that here:
RO 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved...
"He will remove ungodliness from Jacob," this is impossible if some ungodliness is left, "when I take away their sins," if a sin is left, they are not "taken away." This last phrase is thought to be a quote from Jeremiah:
JER 31:34 "No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord.
This is clearly "all without exception," "from the least to the greatest."
And let's say all the Israelites is 50,000 people, who must all believe, to fulfill this prophecy. That should be within reason. If the probability that each person will believe is, say 90% (being conservative again), then we have the overall probability of all these people believing is 90% to the 50,000 power. That comes out to 1 chance in 10 to the 2288 power! How can this prophecy be guaranteed? It is extremely improbable. So now the tables are turned, instead of a very unlikely chance of failure, we have a very unlikely chance of success.
quote:
Lee: How about to Moses, then? DT 31:29 For I know that after my death you are sure to become utterly corrupt and to turn from the way I have commanded you.
Tom: Same deal.
But this prophecy was before they were ever born! So it can't have been based on their character. Again, God predicts a moral choice, a choice of salvation, even, for to become utterly corrupt is not to be saved, for sure.
quote:
We’re just standing in two corners saying “I’m right, you’re wrong.” So unless someone wants to come and rescue us, looks like we’re done.
No problem. But I would recommend that you call the nearest insurance company, and ask them if it's remotely possible that they will see no accidents next year...
quote:
Kingsaint: you may want determinism to be true to protect the truthfulness of Scripture (for you argue that non-zero probabilities threaten that, even .000000000000000000000000000001).
Now I've turned it around, though, now the OV has a prophecy with a tiny tiny probability of success.
quote:
Lee, be honest and try to do some soul searching, what really bothers you, what is your true fear?
I've actually been tested on this point! But the discussion here is about truth, not about my motives, I think...
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 | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 6/2/2004 2:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Lee,
My only point was that sometimes one can arrive at the Truth more easily if one has a clearer sense of why they are debating.
Be that as it may, let me address Romans 11:26 "all Israel will be saved". The first thing I want to point out is the hyperbolic use of language. The use of "all" need not imply 90%, for sure. Here are some examples from scripture:
I Samuel 25:1 Samuel died and all Israel assembled and mourned for him.
I Kings 12:1 Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him King.
2 Chronicles 12:1 When the rule of Rehoboam was established and he grew strong, he abandoned the law of the Lord, he and all Israel with him.
Mark 1:5 And the people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him...
Acts 13:24 ...before his coming John had already proclaimed a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
I contend that the use of the word "all" need not even imply a numerical majority. It can imply a broadly reprentative quality, without even a reference to number (all the people of Jerusalem in Mark 1:5). That is how we use the word "all".
With that said, I do think in Romans 11 that Paul means "all" to contast with "remnant" (Romans 11:5 et al) and so I do think the number needs to be higher than the remnant. But how higher? How do we decide? Good question, we need wisdom. Perhaps a clue is with the parallel of the "fullness" of Gentiles (also 11:12 to describe Israel).
So, the lesson is that Romans 11:26 need not be 90%, which you take as a conservative estimate. However, let me address some of your other concerns.
I think we can tease out of Romans 11 the idea that Israel would be saved by the means of being provoked (11:11, 14; also, 10:19 [Duet. 32:21]). Now, God could know how people would generally respond given certain situations, even if those situations still involve free human choice. The conditions here involve jealousy (which would be an odd way for God to choose how to save people if their freedom is of no account!).
Your point stands that there could be a non-zero probability that no Israelite will believe. So, that is where we started. What is at stake here? That is what I want to know from you Lee.
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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/2/2004 7:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Let’s see here…
1) On probabilities. I’m no expert in probability math. Lee has more of his system at steak in this than I do of mine. So let me concede for the moment (‘cause I wanna make this an issue to pursue) that the probability that a barrel of scrabble letters dropped from the Eiffel Tower would fall to the ground such that Shakespeare’s thirteen Sonnet was formed is not zero. Likewise, the probability that my ten year old would defeat Kasparov is not zero, nor is zero the probability that a blind one-armed white dude with a bear gut would defeat Michael Jordan in a game of one-on-one. However great the probability that the Sonnet won’t form, that Kasparov and Jordan will win their matches, it’s not a 100% strict mathematical certainty.
If that’s the truth about the probabilities, so be it. My hunch is that there is a certainty that follows from ridiculously high improbabilities. But let’s assume I’m wrong and let the theological chips fall where they need to. Where do you see them falling Lee? What do YOU think are the theological horrors of this?
2) If some prophecy in fact requires this kind of 100% certainty, then I’m prepared to admit that no libertarian free will attaches to its fulfillment. On the other hand if its fulfillment depends even in part upon the free choices of human beings, then I’m prepared to admit that the prophecy is conditional.
3) If the events surrounding the life of Cyrus, prophesied generations before he was born, are not conditional, that is, if they possess a 100% probability of coming to pass, then none of the events can be said to depend in part on the free choices of human beings. God determined them. On the other hand, if any of the events in question are to be free, or are to be consider morally responsible choices, then I’m prepared to admit that fulfillment of the events is conditional.
4) There are interpretations to Romans 11 that escape all the falling theological chips from the above points. One could argue that the Israel in question is the one people of God, consisting of both ethnic Jews and Gentiles, that the number of those who will in the end have contributed to constituting God’s people is not determined, that the “all Israel” spoken of is the entire Bride of Christ throughout the ages however few or many end up becoming a part of it, and therefore that Paul is referring to the eschatological consummation of God’s redemptive activity in the world, the point being that ethnic Jews are not excluded from membership in this Body, that their becoming members is not an eschatological event but a daily occurrence to continue through the present age. Lee, let’s please not haggle over the interpretation of this passage. We’re not gonna convince each other. Suffice it to say that there’s nothing in what everybody agrees on concerning the passage the demands ‘unconditionally determined libertarian choices’.
5) Thank you Kingsaint for the examples about “all.” The point is too obvious to even discuss anymore.
6) Regarding Moses’ prediction about Israel’s apostate future, it doesn’t look like a strict prophecy per se. Looks like Moses is concluding that Israel’s future will be bleak based on his assumption (a correct one) that the present generation will pass on to their faults to the next, and likewise to that generation to the next. If the chain has libertarian choices in it (and it surely does) then what Moses predicts does not have a 100% chance of coming to pass as he described it.
7) Kingsaint’s point is important. We’re bringing what we feel and the best conclusions about why God created the world, how God relates to the world, administrates the world, oversees the fulfillment of his purposes, etc. Those deeper beliefs are what’s driving this discussion.
Nite nite,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/2/2004 12:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Kingsaint,
quote:
... let me address Romans 11:26 "all Israel will be saved". The first thing I want to point out is the hyperbolic use of language. The use of "all" need not imply 90%, for sure. Here are some examples from scripture:
I Samuel 25:1 Samuel died and all Israel assembled and mourned for him.
I Kings 12:1 Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him King.
...
I contend that the use of the word "all" need not even imply a numerical majority. It can imply a broadly representative quality, without even a reference to number (all the people of Jerusalem in Mark 1:5). That is how we use the word "all".
Not all the time! There, I just used "all" to mean without exception. Here is the first use of "all" in the OT:
GE 1:25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
And the first use in the NT:
MT 1:17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David.
Both of these do mean "all without exception." And I think "all Israel" does mean all without exception here, to quote Lee again:
quote:
"He will remove ungodliness from Jacob," this is impossible if some ungodliness is left, "when I take away their sins," if a sin is left, they are not "taken away." This last phrase is thought to be a quote from Jeremiah:
JER 31:34 "No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord.
This is clearly "all without exception," "from the least to the greatest."
quote:
The conditions here involve jealousy (which would be an odd way for God to choose how to save people if their freedom is of no account!).
God uses means to accomplish his purposes, that is taught in Scripture:
ISA 10:15 Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it, or the saw boast against him who uses it? As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up, or a club brandish him who is not wood!
quote:
Your point stands that there could be a non-zero probability that no Israelite will believe. So, that is where we started. What is at stake here? That is what I want to know from you Lee.
Simply that if there is any possibility of failure, success cannot be guaranteed. And in the case of "all Israel," success is very very unlikely, if it really depends on human decisions. By the way, a misunderstanding about the 90%, that referred to the probability that any given Israelite would repent, not to the total number that would repent. The total number, I insist, is 100% here.
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 | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/2/2004 12:37 PM (GMT -6) | | And hi, Tom!
quote:
Where do you see them falling Lee? What do YOU think are the theological horrors of this?
That the invincible chess master is not actually invincible. I think this is not my nightmare, though! And in the "all people will choose X" prophecies, or the "person Y will do Z" prophecies, it is very improbable that the chess master will succeed. There is no option that compels people to choose X or do Z, regardless of how they choose.
quote:
If some prophecy in fact requires this kind of 100% certainty, then I’m prepared to admit that no libertarian free will attaches to its fulfillment. On the other hand if its fulfillment depends even in part upon the free choices of human beings, then I’m prepared to admit that the prophecy is conditional.
OK, now I'm interested to hear about Cyrus again. Speaking of Cyrus!
quote:
If the events surrounding the life of Cyrus, prophesied generations before he was born, are not conditional, that is, if they possess a 100% probability of coming to pass, then none of the events can be said to depend in part on the free choices of human beings. God determined them. On the other hand, if any of the events in question are to be free, or are to be consider morally responsible choices, then I’m prepared to admit that fulfillment of the events is conditional.
Yes, this is what I thought the Open View view was. So to speak. The open Open View view. I think the Cyrus prophecies are unconditional, so they must not involve free choices of people. I think your view here implies that every prophecy and promise that depends on a human choice is therefore conditional. But I don't think that's true:
GE 18:18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation
That involves human choices!
ISA 39:6 The time will surely come when everything in your palace, and all that your fathers have stored up until this day, will be carried off to Babylon.
That does, too!
quote:
There are interpretations to Romans 11 that escape all the falling theological chips from the above points. One could argue that the Israel in question is the one people of God, consisting of both ethnic Jews and Gentiles...
But then we have "all Israel will be all Israel," or "all who are going to be saved will be saved," this interpretation makes the statement meaningless.
quote:
Suffice it to say that there’s nothing in what everybody agrees on concerning the passage the demands ‘unconditionally determined libertarian choices’.
Here's another passage:
NA 3:19 Nothing can heal your wound; your injury is fatal.
The Ninevites will not repent this time, and they will certainly be destroyed:
NA 1:8 ... but with an overwhelming flood he will make an end of Nineveh ...
quote:
Regarding Moses’ prediction about Israel’s apostate future, it doesn’t look like a strict prophecy per se. Looks like Moses is concluding that Israel’s future will be bleak based on his assumption (a correct one) that the present generation will pass on to their faults to the next, and likewise to that generation to the next. If the chain has libertarian choices in it (and it surely does) then what Moses predicts does not have a 100% chance of coming to pass as he described it.
I think it was indeed 100% certain, though:
DT 31:18 And I will certainly hide my face on that day because of all their wickedness in turning to other gods.
quote:
Those deeper beliefs are what’s driving this discussion.
Yes, I agree that there is more here than a discussion of "words and names." These are important issues, and the decisions we make about these areas have lots of implications.
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 6/2/2004 6:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee-
I’ll concede that there is a positive probability of a barrel containing just those letters that form Shakespeare’s 13th Sonnet falling from the Eiffel Tower and perfectly forming the Sonnet. I think this probability is so incalculably small as to be more than insignificant. But it’s not zero. Fine. Still, conceding this doesn’t mean conceding your point about Israel in Rom. 11. There you’re simply wrong to insist that “all Israel” mean “every Jew without exception.” Jer. 31.34 doesn’t prove that “all” means “every without exception” because it embraces Israel ‘after the fact’, in the eternal state. And ungodliness can be removed from Jacob without it being removed from every Jew without exception. You’re simply mistaken here. So you can’t insist that your take on this is the only possible way to make any sense of the passage.
quote:
Kingsaint: What is at stake here? That is what I want to know from you Lee.
Lee: Simply that if there is any possibility of failure, success cannot be guaranteed.
Tom: Mathematically true, but if there is a strict possibility of failure in the sort of circumstances we’ve been discussing, then it’s incalculably small. It’s guaranteed enough to stake one’s life on even if one can’t know with 100% certainty. I’d stake my life and the lives of my children on the barrel of letters’ not falling from the Eiffel Tower and forming Shakespeare’s 13th Sonnet. If my very salvation were to depend upon it, I wouldn’t lose a moment of sleep worrying that the Sonnet would form and send me to hell. That’s how small the probability is. It’s not worth noting.
There’s more at stake for you than the interpretation of a single passage. That’s what kingsaint is trying to get you to describe.
Lee: And in the case of "all Israel," success is very very unlikely, if it really depends on human decisions. By the way, a misunderstanding about the 90%, that referred to the probability that any given Israelite would repent, not to the total number that would repent. The total number, I insist, is 100% here.
Tom: Insist if it makes you feel better.
quote:
Tom: Where do you see them falling Lee? What do YOU think are the theological horrors of this?
Lee: That the invincible chess master is not actually invincible.
Tom: Fine. Kasparov isn’t “invincible” if invincibility requires a mathematical probability of 100% that he will defeat the world’s worst player. But the probability of his winning is so incalculably high that you’d be irrational if you gave his losing a moment’s notice. Would you fear that Kasparov would lose? If you were a betting man, would you put any money on the world’s worst player against Kasparov? If your very life depended on Kasparov’s winning the match, would you ever be in fear for your life? I should think not. So, what practical effect does the incalculably small difference between Kasparov’s actual probability of winning and 100% have if all you own and the lives of all you love depended upon his winning? There should be no effect whatsoever. So again, what are the theological horrors?
If I have to admit that God’s plans for creation, because then entail libertarian free will, are not strictly and mathematically “invincible,” fine. I’ll concede that. But that doesn’t make God’s existence or person invincible. God won’t explode if history were to have come and gone without a single human being choosing to love him freely.
Lee: I think this [the chess match] is not my nightmare, though! And in the "all people will choose X" prophecies, or the "person Y will do Z" prophecies, it is very improbable that the chess master will succeed. There is no option that compels people to choose X or do Z, regardless of how they choose.
Tom: Very “improbable” that over all of history somewhere at least one human being will choose to love God freely? Very “improbable” that Kasparov will defeat the world’s worst player? Improbable that Jordan will defeat a blind one-armed pot-bellied white dude? No, these are incalculably very probable. You have your probabilities turned around. Don’t drag Rom. 11 into this. It doesn’t “prove” your point. Even if one wanted to insist that “all” meant “every one without exception,” I’ve already offered an interpretation that many accept which is consistent with libertarian choices that doesn't leave us having to admit that the probability is very low that what Paul is describing will in fact occur. It just doesn’t have the 100% strict probability of occuring that you’re demanding. So what? So the prophecy is strictly speaking conditional. There’s an incalculably greater probability that the barrel of letters will form a single meaningful sentence when dropped from the Eiffel Tower than that God won’t succeed at his plans. Your making an issue of the math, when the probabilities are so high, is irrational.
Of course, in prophecies that don’t require libertarian free will, then you can have 100% certainty if you want it. I’ve already conceded that if a prophecy’s fulfillment requires libertarian free will, there can’t by definition be a 100% guarantee of its occurring. So what?
Also again, if I have to admit that God’s plans for creation, because they entail libertarian free will, are not strictly and mathematically “invincible,” fine. I’ll concede that. But that doesn’t make God’s existence or person less than invincible. Yes, where we are free to say ‘No’ to God, God’s plan can be defeated. So what? That God sometimes doesn’t get what he wants is obvious to me. 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.
So what IS your real nightmare here?
Lee: Yes, I agree that there is more here than a discussion of "words and names." These are important issues, and the decisions we make about these areas have lots of implications.
Tom: What are the implications?
Lee:But then we have "all Israel will be all Israel," or "all who are going to be saved will be saved," this interpretation makes the statement meaningless.
Tom: Not at all. It’s not meaningless to say “There will come a day when the constituting of God’s people will come to an end.” The other passages you mentioned (Abraham’s becoming great, God using Babylon to judge Israel, etc.) don’t pose a problem. But I’m really hurtin for time. Not sure we’re gonna get any more mileage out of this thread.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/2/2004 7:34 PM (GMT -6) | | 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 | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 6/4/2004 2:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
I want to return to Romans 11:26, because I simply disagree with your contention that "all" means "without exception". What were your arguments? You seemed to give two:
(1) quote:
Not all the time! There, I just used "all" to mean without exception. Here is the first use of "all" in the OT:
GE 1:25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
And the first use in the NT:
MT 1:17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David.
Both of these do mean "all without exception." And I think "all Israel" does mean all without exception here, to quote Lee again:
This is a poor argument. That there are uses of "all" which mean "without exception" does not prove your case. Now, if you argued (which you didn't) that there are no other uses of "all" in scripture which do not mean "without exception", then you would have an argument, but you failed to address any of the examples I presented. However, you did admit that "all" does not have to mean "without exception".
(2) quote:
RO 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved...
"He will remove ungodliness from Jacob," this is impossible if some ungodliness is left, "when I take away their sins," if a sin is left, they are not "taken away." This last phrase is thought to be a quote from Jeremiah:
JER 31:34 "No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord.
This is clearly "all without exception," "from the least to the greatest."
Tom pointed out how bad this argument was. Strictly speaking "God will remove ungodliness from Jacob" would be true if the measure of ungodliness God removed was .000000000000000000000000001 unit of ungodliness. The "their" in "I will take away their sin" is a reference to the "all" but that meaning is what we are debating, so this does not help you at all (pardon the pun).
Now, you did not address my arguments that "all" did not mean "without exception". Let me develope one of those arguments. I said that there is probably a parallel in Paul using the term "fullness" for gentiles (Rom. 11:11, 25) and the "all" of Israel ("fullness" is used for Israel in 11:12). Now, "fullness" need not mean 100% in the case of gentiles, so it need not mean it for Israel (note the word "some" in 11:14).
So, you cannot argue that Romans 11:26 has to be "improbable". Now, what is at stake here? Let us assume that the .0000000000000000001 case comes true. The analogy would be for a chess novice to get so completely lucky that they just so happen to put Kasparov in checkmate. Tom is right that we would still use the word "invincible" to describe Kasparov in the situation that exists between Kasparov and the novice. Now, if you, Lee, would not, well, that just shows you use language differently than the rest of us. Let us say you get to St. Peter's gate (sorry, it's not my call whether you get through!) and the .0000000000000000001 case happens. Or course upon getting to the gate, St. Peter informs you that open theism is true:
Lee: I am so bummed, Romans 11:26 failed.
St. Peter: It's not as though God's word has failed [quoting Romans 9:6]
Lee: But "all" Israel was not saved.
St. Peter: Are you bummed because "all" Israel was not saved?
Lee: Not really, not any more bummed than that many gentiles did not get saved.
St. Peter: Then why are you so bummed if you have no stake in this verse, it has to do with someone else's free will.
Lee: I thought it presented a problem for the chess analogy, and I found that a strong argument for open theism.
St. Peter: but why did you want open theism to be wrong?
Lee: because it could not insure God's plans.
St. Peter: But those plans that matter to you do not depend on other's free will. Besises, Romans 11:26 was just saying that God would do all he could to insure that "all" Israel would be saved. .999999999999999 counts as meaning "all Israel will be saved"
Lee: no it doesn't.
St. Peter: How would this sound: All Israel will be saved but only with a .9999999999999999999 probability. We simply do not talk like that, and so why should God through Paul? So, it comes down to the issue about how language is used and what it is meant to accomplish. Paul and God accomplished what they wanted to do with Romans 11:26.
"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 | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/5/2004 5:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi everybody,
Well, I went to the pumpkin hour last night, too, and still didn't get around to my post. But I'm not yet a vegetable! Nor even a vegetarian. Are vegetables vegetarians? They eat compost and leaf matter. Eeek! They're worse than vegetarians, they're cannibals! Anyway...
quote:
Tom: ... ungodliness can be removed from Jacob without it being removed from every Jew without exception. You’re simply mistaken here. So you can’t insist that your take on this is the only possible way to make any sense of the passage.
quote:
Kingsaint: Strictly speaking "God will remove ungodliness from Jacob" would be true if the measure of ungodliness God removed was .000000000000000000000000001 unit of ungodliness.
Are you saying that there will always be some ungodliness in Jacob? I don't think so! So when does God remove all of it? I think Rom. 11:26 tells us, when "all Israel will be saved."
quote:
Tom: ... if there is a strict possibility of failure in the sort of circumstances we’ve been discussing, then it’s incalculably small.
Not for "all Israel!" The probability of success there is the incalculably small one. 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%, then the probability of success is less than 50%.
quote:
Tom: So again, what are the theological horrors? ... God won’t explode if history were to have come and gone without a single human being choosing to love him freely.
I would call that a theological horror. And he predicted that we would come, and even set this up before the world was created:
1CO 2:7 No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
So it has to happen, without fail.
quote:
Lee: I think this [the chess match] is not my nightmare, though! And in the "all people will choose X" prophecies, or the "person Y will do Z" prophecies, it is very improbable that the chess master will succeed. There is no option that compels people to choose X or do Z, regardless of how they choose.
Tom: Very “improbable” that over all of history somewhere at least one human being will choose to love God freely?
That's how you have defined success, but maybe it's time for me to ask for a Scripture reference? What is God's overall purpose for all human beings, in the area of salvation? Is it to save everyone? If so, then if one person does not repent, then God's overall plan has failed:
1TI 2:4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
quote:
Tom: Yes, where we are free to say ‘No’ to God, God’s plan can be defeated. So what? That God sometimes doesn’t get what he wants is obvious to me.
Not to me, it isn't!
DA 4:35 All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?"
quote:
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.
But he wouldn't be God, then...
2TI 1:9 ... who has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace.
quote:
Lee: Yes, I agree that there is more here than a discussion of "words and names." These are important issues, and the decisions we make about these areas have lots of implications.
Tom: What are the implications?
If God is not in control of men's decisions, then some of what happens to us (much of what happens?) is simply regrettable. And God owes some of us an apology, I think! But have you noticed that Jesus never did apologize? There's no such verse in Scripture. That has an implication...
quote:
Lee:But then we have "all Israel will be all Israel," or "all who are going to be saved will be saved," this interpretation makes the statement meaningless.
Tom: Not at all. It’s not meaningless to say “There will come a day when the constituting of God’s people will come to an end.” The other passages you mentioned (Abraham’s becoming great, God using Babylon to judge Israel, etc.) don’t pose a problem. But I’m really hurtin for time. Not sure we’re gonna get any more mileage out of this thread.
But the statement is positive, not negative. You have made it a negative statement. This is like the interpretation I have heard of this verse:
AC 13:48 ... all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
This is not "all who were going to believe, believed." That hardly needed to be said...
I understand time constraints, too! Pumpkin pie, anyone?
quote:
John: 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"
It is borne out by the context, though:
RO 11:28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs...
Gentiles are not "loved on account of the patriarchs." Let's check the verse prior to "all Israel":
RO 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
Certainly "Israel" here doesn't refer to believers!
quote:
Kingsaint: there is probably a parallel in Paul using the term "fullness" for gentiles (Rom. 11:11, 25) and the "all" of Israel ("fullness" is used for Israel in 11:12). Now, "fullness" need not mean 100% in the case of gentiles, so it need not mean it for Israel (note the word "some" in 11:14).
I would note that "the fullness of the Gentiles" indicates that God has a definite idea of when this condition may be said to be fulfilled.
Ga 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son...
Thus he knows how many there are, I think, and this fits with verses that say God chooses who will come in. The "some" in verse 14 is in Paul's day, verse 26 is a prophecy, thus it's not in Paul's day, it's in the future.
quote:
Kingsaint: However, you did admit that "all" does not have to mean "without exception".
I agree! You all were seeming to say that "all" sometimes means "all, but not without exception," and concluding therefore that "all Israel" doesn't mean "all without exception." So I hasten to point out that this argument is invalid. So we agree, I think.
quote:
St. Peter: How would this sound: All Israel will be saved but only with a .9999999999999999999 probability.
You just turned the probabilities around, though! This one is one of the .00000000000001 ones. Or 50% at best. But what you said would sound good. This would sound better: "all Israel will be saved." And I think that is what is true.
quote:
St. Peter: But those plans that matter to you do not depend on other's free will.
I should care for others, though! More than myself. Paul did. And probably Peter did, too! He was the "apostle to the Jews":
RO 9:2-4 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel.
PS 122:6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: May those who love you be secure.
Blessings,
Lee
P.S. I caught up! Am I the postess with the mostess, now? But I'm a guy. The poster with the moster...
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/5/2004 6:26 AM (GMT -6) | | And on a mathematical note! (Those who aren't fond of math may skip this part). I did relax one of my assumptions, in computing the probability that more than half of Israel would believe. I said the probability of any given person believing was 50%, where before I suggested 90%. I'm confessing my sins, here. If someone wants the probability of more than half believing, with 90% probability for each, I can compute that, but this would take some time. I probably would have to write a program, but I'm a programmer, so that's not such a problem. The two scenarios I did are the real easy ones to compute, so that's why I picked them.
Also! I assumed that the probability of any given person believing is the same for every person. That's certainly not true! Now it is possible to say, like the statistics folks, that such events fit "a distribution," usually a "normal distribution." But this requires even more work to calculate, I think. My math is rusty, I'm not even sure exactly how to do this. But I think it could be done.
So if anyone insists on better answers, I can try, or ask someone else. But then patience is required. I'm pedalling as fast as I can...
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 | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 6/5/2004 9:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Lee,
quote:
Not for "all Israel!" The probability of success there is the incalculably small one. 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%
Why do you insist that the probability of one person believing is 50% (or even 90%). In one of my posts, 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). 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. Open theists do not deny that there are external factors which influence choice, we just say that the choice is ultimately the agents. 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. This point is important in refuting your claim that Romans 11:26 has to be improbable. I think your failure to appreciate this point hampers you from seeing the logic of my other arguments.
That God has set a certain number to be the "fullness" (if that is true), nothing follows that he predetermines precisely those indivivduals who will be saved to match that fullness.
Let me rephrase my statement. Romans 11:26 does not effect your salvation (regardless how concerned you would or would not be for the Israelites). 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.
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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/5/2004 10:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee-
I wrote out several long replies to comments you made. In the end I erased it all. I think we’re talking past each other without anything being gained or lost. I would like to make a couple of comments though, then I’ll be done.
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.
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’s the only sort of God who even qualifies as God.
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. This, Lee, is the rock bottom of our differences. I don’t see any way past this. It’s THE most influential belief driving the discussion.
Lee: If God is not in control of men's decisions, then some of what happens to us (much of what happens?) is simply regrettable.
Tom: Much that happens to us IS regrettable by us and God. But no one regrets more deeply than God.
Lee: And God owes some of us an apology, I think! But have you noticed that Jesus never did apologize? There's no such verse in Scripture. That has an implication...
Tom: Since I don’t agree that God owes us an apology for what happens in a world of libertarian freedom, I don’t follow the implication. 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? No.
The expectation for an apology from God follows if God’s the one unconditionally determining all things, sine those who owe the apologies are those who determine the evil. If I insult you, you anticipate an apology from me and not from someone else. If God determines everything, then I can understand somebody expecting an apology from God. But then a person who unconditionally determines that children be abused isn’t likely to be the sort of person who would apologize for anything. So, Lee, the absence of any apology from God in Scripture may mean he doesn’t owe us one because he’s not the one who determines the evil we seek an apology for, or it may mean he determined the evil we seek an apology for but, being the sort of person who unconditionally determines evil anyhow, God’s not about to apologize to anyone. My reading of Scripture points me to the former. Your reading points me to the latter.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| 46 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:10 AM (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 |
|
|