 |
| 
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/20/2003 4:44 AM (GMT -6) |   | I'll try to make this brief - but the OV theology seems very elusive to me - it cannot be pinned down. It seems that OVers, on this board at least, say that God can determine the future if he wants to - thing is he doesn't want to for the most part- but he does do it sometimes - and will have to do it to ensure that there is an ultimate victory for him (partly open, partly not).
OK, don't you see the problem here? You're having your cake and eating it too. When it seems like a good thing for there to be determinism- eg, God's final victory, OVers say yes, there is determinism. When it looks bad b/c it seems to make God the author of evil and some kind of crazy puppeteer, no he is not determining anything.
I was thinking, you could just turn that around. I could argue for Calvinism, and say, yes, God does determine things most of the time, but at certain times he chooses not to. The future IS partly open, partly not. I could say, yes, most of the time God is controlling things- he set up the universe, he has a plan, and he has a time in mind for that plan to come to fruition - BUT, he purposely avoids that determinism when it comes to human freedom - even though he IS in control ultimately, he decides to allow a partly open future in order to grant humans freedom and to be able to really choose love. So what's the problem?
Can't you do this with any view? In order to avoid uncomfortableness- you pick and choose what is good in several views and put them together, thus avoiding having to be pinned down about what the belief truly is.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
 |
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 6/20/2003 5:28 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I was thinking, you could just turn that around. I could argue for Calvinism, and say, yes, God does determine things most of the time, but at certain times he chooses not to. The future IS partly open, partly not. I could say, yes, most of the time God is controlling things- he set up the universe, he has a plan, and he has a time in mind for that plan to come to fruition - BUT, he purposely avoids that determinism when it comes to human freedom - even though he IS in control ultimately, he decides to allow a partly open future in order to grant humans freedom and to be able to really choose love. So what's the problem?
What you're describing here IS the open view.
Determinism by definition means that the future is entirely settled.
Process theism (as I understand it) holds that the future is entirely open.
Open theism holds that the future is, as you say, partly open, partly not.
Thanks,
JET
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 6/20/2003 5:57 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
OK, don't you see the problem here? You're having your cake and eating it too. When it seems like a good thing for there to be determinism- eg, God's final victory, OVers say yes, there is determinism. When it looks bad b/c it seems to make God the author of evil and some kind of crazy puppeteer, no he is not determining anything.
It’s not a matter of wanting to have it both ways. Rather, the OV is merely articulating what appears (to some people) to be the nature of reality based on Biblical grounds, philosophical grounds and experience.
From a Biblical perspective, if OV exegesis is correct, then we clearly see both motifs in Scripture–the future is partly settled and partly open.
From a philosophical perspective, I see nothing wrong with positing an all-powerful being who sovereignly decides to create other beings with genuine but limited freedom, thus resulting in a future that is partly open, but only within the divinely-imposed limits of that freedom.
From experience we see that people live their lives as though part of what happens is up to them even though many of those same people also believe that God providentially acts in the world to accomplish his objectives.
Thanks,
JET
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/20/2003 6:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Let's lay aside the biblical support for a second. B/c both sides can find ample biblical support for each respective side- and each explains away the verses that seem antithetical.
Looking at it purely from logical reasoning- does it make any sense that God - an all powerful, omniscient, etc. being- that His will is ever NOT accomplished? He wills what he wills and it occurs. He willed the universe into existence and said it was good. No one can stop his will - if that being could - then that being must be at least as powerful as God.
Some differentiate between God's permissive will and his real will - in other words, he allows certain things to occur for whatever reason that we don't think are good. And those things which are allowed under his permissive will may not be his ideal - or what he really wants. He really wants all people to accept him - but he could easily have that occur if he wanted to. By his permissive will he decides that he wants to allow people to do what they want and suffer the consequences. But the fact remains that it is HIS all powerful permissive will that these things occur. B/c if he decided he did n't want them, who could stop him?
So- in other words - we can put aside the talk of a determined or open future. We can concentrate on the fact that whatever happens is either actively willed or permissively willed by God.
I think you would say the same thing - when you say that God limits his own knowledge in order to allow human autonomy.
So, is this pretty semantical, overall? Can you agree that whatever occurs in the universe is either purposely willed, or permissively willed by GOd? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/20/2003 6:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Let's say Dick and Jane get married. Dick makes a lot of money and can indulge Jane's every wish, she says she loves him. Eventually Dick's money runs out and Jane leaves. Dick realizes Jane loved him only because he could do things for her, it was a love out of expediency. He really wanted someone who would love him for who he was, money or no money.
This, I believe, is what Satan thought Job's love for God was, an expedient love. "Does Job fear God for nothing?"
God proved Satan wrong by allowing Satan to remove all the benefits of serving God from Job. Job still loved God, simply because God is lovable. "Though He slay me, I will hope in Him."
Satan thinks God's rule is based on raw power and of buying people's love. God is out to prove Satan wrong. Hence the freedom to choose good or choose evil is allowed. If God just wipes evil away, like a celestial santa claus, then Satan's premise was correct.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/20/2003 7:45 AM (GMT -6) | | RD,
quote:
Looking at it purely from logical reasoning- does it make any sense that God - an all powerful, omniscient, etc. being- that His will is ever NOT accomplished? He wills what he wills and it occurs. He willed the universe into existence and said it was good. No one can stop his will - if that being could - then that being must be at least as powerful as God.
RD, all you have to do to answer most of the issues that bother you about the OV is simply look to yourself. You are made in the image of God. You can have children. You can decide, choose and will (some things). But some of the things you can will and choose--determine--might not be in the best interest of you, your children, or that thing you've determined.
Say you could determine that some particular person is going to obey your every command and love you, period. No questions asked. Well, the person doesn't want to, but by golly, you've determined that it will be, and so it becomes. Well, what and where does that get you or the person? Sure, you have the power (for our example), to determine what this person will or won't do, but it's not about determining, is it. Not even for God. It's about RELATIONSHIP! And all the OV says is that based on our best understanding of Scripture and personal experience (i.e., just existing as a person among other persons) is that not all of the future is determined. It would be senseless for God to do so--not that He couldn't, but you and I wouldn't be here posting about it, we'd be simply doing exactly what we've been determined to do.
Again, you're own person, RD, is the best mirror to look into to understand the OV. It's how YOU live every day of your life: freedom in some things, freedom in others; determining some things, not determining others. And as I said, sometimes even when you can determine some things, you know that it wouldn't be the best way to handle the issue. That doesn't mean you CAN'T determine or that you're somehow second-rate or less than who you essentially are, it just means that the end desire calls for handing the situation in an manner apart from the ability to determine. That's all it means, nothing more. It's the same way with God; can He determine everything? Well, of course. But just because He chooses not to is NOT to say that His essential being is somehow compromised . . . in ANY manner. It simply means that for X to become Y there cannot be determinism (for me to love Him of my own heart means He cannot determine that I will love Him. Who--including you, me, and God--would want to determine others to love? What's that accomplish? It's against what YOU would want BECAUSE it is against what GOD would want!
The OV says look around you. Look at another person and that person's actions. Look at life. Look at how we act/re-act. Does ALL of life seem pre-planned or determined? And by the same token, does ALL of life seem free? No to both questions. Now, get this, because it's important: If life reflects most naturally an open view, than the parts you don't understand or don't have answers to do not negate the realities of that opened part of life that are already plain and clear. It simply means that you don't have the information you need to understand it all. But it doesn't mean that what information you already have is not both real and true.
Again, RD, YOU are your best example of how God relates to us. That is not to say that you (or any of us) are the best examples or reflections of God's essential nature, but you really don't have to sacrifice anything to do with God's abilities and knowledge simply because God chooses to make some parts of the future undetermined. You live this way yourself every day, but you are no less you because you do so.
Hope this helps,
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown
Edited by - Starkman on 06/20/2003 12:52:33 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 6/20/2003 7:58 AM (GMT -6) | | RD says:quote:
We can concentrate on the fact that whatever happens is either actively willed or permissively willed by God.
What if we turn what we usually think of as God's wills around...
God's active (real) will is that we have a choice and His permissive is all come to Him. This makes more sense when we view what is actually happening. All choose ( active,we can't escape this one ) , some come to Him ( permissive, some don't love Him ).
peace and love, don
---
"You cannot step twice into the same river; for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you." Heraclitus | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/20/2003 8:11 AM (GMT -6) | | OK, so far no one has answered my question of whether you believe everything that occurs is either actively or permissively willed by God.
Many people keep trying to beat "relationship" into my head as if this solves everything. To many people, myself included, human autonomy to choose relationships is important- but not important enough to outweigh the horrible suffering that occurs as a result. I'd rather have a relationship that is not utterly free but is harmonious than a relationship of total freedom but have a 5 yr old child have to suffer and die from cancer as a result.
But again it doesn't matter, b/c I maintain that everything that occurs is either actively or permissively willed by God. I do not know why he allows - or permits- evil. I am not going to try to answer that.
I do know that the free will argument doesn't do anything to solve the problem of evil - as I, Chris Grant - and others have said in the thread on 'Beyond the bounds'. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Rpeterso
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 18
| Posted 6/20/2003 8:13 AM (GMT -6) | | RD:
Let's lay aside the biblical support for a second. B/c both sides can find ample biblical support for each respective side- and each explains away the verses that seem antithetical.
Rpeterso:
I see this to be the major flaw within your reasoning. This is a very generic claim which can be applied almost universally to any theological contention. For example, much biblical evidence can be found in support of apollinarianism, arianism, Gnosticism, pantheism, etc., and in which case, proponents of such can easily rationalize away any biblical texts in contradiction with their viewpoint. In any case, this rationalization does not preclude these ideologies from being heresies. It is for this reason that one’s theological contention must cohere with the entire biblical text in a fashion that employs ACCURATE interpretations of scripture rather than radical and/or feeble excuses for incongruous texts.
RD:
…when you say that God limits his own knowledge in order to allow human autonomy.
Rpeterso:
I do not think most open theists would agree with this claim (at least I don’t). Open theism is primarily a philosophical school of thought concerning the ontological status of reality rather than the scope of God’s knowledge. In essence then, Open Theists claim that the intrinsic nature of reality is one that exists as unsettled. Your claim presupposes that there are settled aspects of the future that remain unknown to God because He “limited His foreknowledge.” The future consists of possibilities inherently and God knows this to be such. There is nothing in the future for God to forfeit or limit to begin with.
Just some thoughts.
Ryan
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/20/2003 8:16 AM (GMT -6) | | OK, Ryan, the reason I don't want to get into verses is because tons of people have cut and pasted many many verses on this Board to support their argument. Nobody gets anywhere. I don't choose to argue in that manner, although if you wish to, that's your right.
And your second point- that's what I had thought initially -t hat the OV was a way of looking at reality in which the future is not settled and exists only as possibilities. But several people here have said that is not the case, that the future IS partially determined. I've been trying to figure out the consistency here. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/20/2003 8:31 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
quote:
I'd rather have a relationship that is not utterly free but is harmonious than a relationship of total freedom but have a 5 yr old child have to suffer and die from cancer as a result.
Where's the cancerous child in your first relationship example?
relationship
1. not utterly free, no cancerous child
2. total freedom, cancerous child
real neat trick, RD
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/20/2003 8:41 AM (GMT -6) | | | You just don't get it, Laika. Actually your posts are pretty funny, so I do appreciate them. My point is that many people would rather not have freedom if the price to pay for it is evil and suffering. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/20/2003 8:46 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
quote:
You just don't get it, Laika. Actually your posts are pretty funny, so I do appreciate them. My point is that many people would rather not have freedom if the price to pay for it is evil and suffering.
But the evil and suffering are still there whether they have freedom or not, right?
You're a lawyer, which will get me the sterner sentence in court?
1. I shoot someone dead
2. I watch my son shoot someone dead
And I like your posts. They don't go on for page after page of text scraped off other sites.
Edited by - Laika on 06/20/2003 1:47:45 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/20/2003 8:51 AM (GMT -6) | | No - if free willer's are using human freedom as a justification for the presence of evil- a theodicy - I am saying - that isn't much of a justification for many people who would rather have less freedom and less suffering.
And as far as your legal question - it depends. Both could get the same sentence if they are considered co-conspirators. If someone is an innocent bystander, no they aren't legally on the hook. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/20/2003 9:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
No - if free willer's are using human freedom as a justification for the presence of evil- a theodicy - I am saying - that isn't much of a justification for many people who would rather have less freedom and less suffering.
I believe we have lots of freedom
You believe God has lots of control
Yet the amount of evil and suffering in the world is the same.
I think what you're driving at is that people have more comfort thinking evil and suffering are part of God's plan than they do thinking we cause the evil and suffering.
quote:
If someone is an innocent bystander, no they aren't legally on the hook.
So if God only allowed the evil, He'd be less culpable than if He was the one actually causing the evil. In a court of law. And RD was His attorney.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
S.B.G.
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 143
| Posted 6/20/2003 9:07 AM (GMT -6) | | LAIKA TO REASONABLE DOUBT: And I like your posts. They don't go on for page after page of text scraped off other sites.
I agree whole heartedly !!! 
S.B.G.
To understand and to be understood is bliss. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/20/2003 9:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey RD,
First, the future is PARTLY determined; there's some things God has said, "This is the way it's going to be; end of argument." (I thought I had kind of made that clear in my first post, but I may not have.) Some things ARE determined (partly settled), and some things are NOT determined (partly open). Also, please understand that total freedom is NOT built into the open view. It is limited, and so is the openness of the future.
Second, you can't possibly have meaningful relationship--relationship that is built upon the freedom of individuals to CHOOSE to love one another--and have it be harmonious if there is no freedom, and thus, possibility for those people to choose not to love AND do worse: be evil people. That's why God told Adam that the day he eats of the fruit . . . he's history. Clear and plain: "Do as I ask and we'll all get along great. Rebel and you'll (Adam) end up throwing yourself into some serious stuff. But you don't have to; I've told you ahead of time."
The Open View, RD, IS about relationship. Relationship of the good and of the evil. That God allows/permits evil . . . again, it's one of those things that we don't have enough info on to understand it all. We do know,however, that evil exists beecause of man's rebellion against God--something man was free to do choose to do. And that God saw it more fitting to allow the possibility and expression of evil is one of those very things that I mentioned in my first post that you (and I) simply do not have all the information to understand God's ways. BUT . . . that neither negates the open view nor the freedom to choose.
I have GOT to go. Mail's got to be done at work!
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 6/20/2003 10:15 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
RD: OK, so far no one has answered my question of whether you believe everything that occurs is either actively or permissively willed by God.
I would agree with this statement, although we may have a different understanding of “permissively willed by God”. I’ll give you my understanding and you can tell me how far apart we are with respect to our understanding of “permissively willed by God”.
Assume for the sake of argument that:
A. God did (does) in fact give creatures freedom (in the sense of genuine “say so”); and
B. This freedom, while genuine, is also limited. (Nobody claims we have unlimited freedom.)
From these assumptions, we can conclude:
1. Sometimes things happen that are “actively” or “purposively” willed by God.
By creating a world with limited freedom, God retained plenty of “room” within which to act unilaterally.
2. Sometimes things happen that are “permissively” willed by God for a particular reason. The event is not caused by God in the sense that, but for the existence of creaturely freedom, the event would not have occurred. However, God could have prevented the event from occurring but chose not to in this case for a particular reason. The event may appear to us as gratuitous evil, but it is not really evil because God has a good reason to allow it to happen even though he could have prevented it.
3. Sometimes things happen that God does not want to happen but God allows to happen because of the “rules of engagement” pursuant to which God chose to relate to creation. The fact that freedom is genuine requires that it is irrevocable (but only within the divinely proscribed limits of that freedom). Thus, by granting genuine freedom, God decided he would relate to Creation within the bounds of certain “rules of engagement” that are, in part, defined by the nature and extent of God-given creaturely freedom and the God-decreed limits thereof. This type of event can be understood as gratuitous evil in the sense that there is no particular reason why God allowed this particular evil to occur. But this type of event can also be understood as “permissively allowed” by God in the sense that the event would not have happened but for God’s decision to relate to creation vis-a-vis these “rules of engagement”.
Edited by - JET on 06/20/2003 3:18:11 PM
Edited by - JET on 06/20/2003 3:21:32 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/20/2003 10:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Jet, I agree with you for the most part. My differing interpretation though is that by choosing the "rules of engagement" that god did- he set up everything. He didn't have to have those particular rules, and for some reason, he decided to do so. Whatever that reason is- those rules then determine how history is played out. This is very simple actually. If God had not chosen to create, there would have been no evil- and so the rules of engagement- ie, not creating, would have determined no evil. If God had chosen to create only animals and not humans, there would have been different rules. If God had chosen to create humans to have bullet proof skin, to have genes that effectively fought off all viruses and bacteria, that all had the intelligence of Einstein, etc., we certainly would be operating under different rules.
The fact that God chose these particular rules means history is determined - in the way in which he wants the world to operate. B/c God chose those rules of engagement, there could be no other universe than what we have now.
If you are going to argue that it is not possible for there to be any other rules of engagement - then there is something that is stronger than God - something forcing him to use those particular rules. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 6/20/2003 10:51 AM (GMT -6) | | RD: My differing interpretation though is that by choosing the "rules of engagement" that god did- he set up everything. He didn't have to have those particular rules, and for some reason, he decided to do so.
JET: Agreed, so far.
RD: Whatever that reason is- those rules then determine how history is played out.
JET: Whoa, not so fast.
RD: This is very simple actually. If God had not chosen to create, there would have been no evil- and so the rules of engagement- ie, not creating, would have determined no evil. If God had chosen to create only animals and not humans, there would have been different rules. If God had chosen to create humans to have bullet proof skin, to have genes that effectively fought off all viruses and bacteria, that all had the intelligence of Einstein, etc., we certainly would be operating under different rules.
JET: Agreed.
RD: The fact that God chose these particular rules means history is determined - in the way in which he wants the world to operate. B/c God chose those rules of engagement, there could be no other universe than what we have now.
JET: But what if the “rules of engagement” include: (1) that God will respect the creaturely freedom that he ordained (i.e., freedom is irrevocable within the divinely-set limits) and (2) that such freedom can be exercised in ways that are not entirely predictable? Under these “rules of engagement” history would not be “determined” but rather would be played out in time, right?
RD: If you are going to argue that it is not possible for there to be any other rules of engagement - then there is something that is stronger than God - something forcing him to use those particular rules.
JET: I agree. I’m not going to argue that.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/20/2003 10:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Jet: First - I don't support free will, but for the sake of argument, I will make the assumption that the rules of engagement mean what you say, that freedom can be exercised in ways that are not entirely predictable (and of course no one's made the argument that anything is predictable to humans - but only to God).
I think it is just a matter of an 'overall' determination versus a 'specific ' determination. According to you, there is no specific determination b/c of the rules. But I believe that the rules themselves are the overall determination of the universe's state of affairs.
Even if I were to grant that God does not know specific outcomes of free human actions - I still say that whether he knows or not doesn't make any difference. B/c he chose those rules from the get-go - the outcome goes particular ways - the outcome would be different had there been different rules of engagement. So what is the cause of the outcomes? You say human free choice. I say, ok, but in the big picture, the cause of the outcomes is the rules of engagement - which were chosen and executed by God. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 6/20/2003 11:49 AM (GMT -6) | | RD: First - I don't support free will, but for the sake of argument, I will make the assumption that the rules of engagement mean what you say, that freedom can be exercised in ways that are not entirely predictable (and of course no one's made the argument that anything is predictable to humans - but only to God).
I think it is just a matter of an 'overall' determination versus a 'specific ' determination. According to you, there is no specific determination b/c of the rules. But I believe that the rules themselves are the overall determination of the universe's state of affairs.
JET: I understand we are merely assuming the existence of freedom for the sake of argument.
I think I would agree that the (assumed) “rules” determine the “overall” state of affairs of the universe (as opposed to “specific determination”).
RD: Even if I were to grant that God does not know specific outcomes of free human actions - I still say that whether he knows or not doesn't make any difference. B/c he chose those rules from the get-go - the outcome goes particular ways - the outcome would be different had there been different rules of engagement. So what is the cause of the outcomes? You say human free choice. I say, ok, but in the big picture, the cause of the outcomes is the rules of engagement - which were chosen and executed by God.
JET: I disagree that there is no difference. Here’s what I mean:
If we assume that God created a world with genuine but limited freedom, this does little to help us understand why God does not prevent particular incidents which appear to us to be evil.
However, if freedom does not exist, then we must somehow convince ourselves that EVERY event which appears to us as gratuitous evil (including, for example, the brutal rape and torture of a small child) is in fact not gratuitous, but rather is part of God’s plan–i.e., for whatever reason, God wanted it to happen.
Isn’t there a difference here?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 6/20/2003 12:13 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
1. Sometimes things happen that are “actively” or “purposively” willed by God. By creating a world with limited freedom, God retained plenty of “room” within which to act unilaterally.
2. Sometimes things happen that are “permissively” willed by God for a particular reason. The event is not caused by God in the sense that, but for the existence of creaturely freedom, the event would not have occurred. However, God could have prevented the event from occurring but chose not to in this case for a particular reason. The event may appear to us as gratuitous evil, but it is not really evil because God has a good reason to allow it to happen even though he could have prevented it.
3. Sometimes things happen that God does not want to happen but God allows to happen because of the “rules of engagement” pursuant to which God chose to relate to creation. The fact that freedom is genuine requires that it is irrevocable (but only within the divinely proscribed limits of that freedom). Thus, by granting genuine freedom, God decided he would relate to Creation within the bounds of certain “rules of engagement” that are, in part, defined by the nature and extent of God-given creaturely freedom and the God-decreed limits thereof. This type of event can be understood as gratuitous evil in the sense that there is no particular reason why God allowed this particular evil to occur. But this type of event can also be understood as “permissively allowed” by God in the sense that the event would not have happened but for God’s decision to relate to creation vis-a-vis these “rules of engagement”.
In other words, with respect to any given event:
1. If freedom exists, I cannot know with certainty whether it is the type of event described in 1, 2 or 3.
2. If freedom does not exist, then nothing happens unless God specifically wants it to happen.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/20/2003 3:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Jet - I have to say - I admire you b/c you are putting forth a good argument and not being emotional - which I try to do, but don't always succeed:)
Anyway, yes, I do perceive a difference - I'll admit, it makes God the "author" of evil to believe in determinism, which may be hard to swallow. But to me it is even harder to swallow a God who is not in control. Personal preferences aside, I just believe the scientific evidence points to determinism, and I believe the Biblical evidence, for the most part, supports it as well.
But even though I may respectfully disagree with you, I can definitely appreciate your position. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/20/2003 3:58 PM (GMT -6) | | And, I was thinking of an analogy- I don't usually think analogies are good when talking about God, since anything in the human realm is so inadequate - but here goes -
Say you as a responsible adult are running a daycare center. You have choices about where to set up the daycare center. You can either have it at a church in a safe area in America- or you can have it in the middle of Afghanistan - its entirely up to you. You have the power to decide.
If you decide to build it in Afghanistan- in the midst of war, and then you sit back and let the kids play - what happens? Odds are, some bad things are going to happen. If instead, you built it in a safe welcoming environment, and you had the exact same kids, probably not too much bad is going to happen. The kids retain their free will in both circumstances.
But, can you see that the entire set-up determines a lot of what happens, regardless of free will? | | Back to Top | | |
| 39 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:27 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|