 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 11:10 AM (GMT -6) |   |
Christus Victor Ministries
Add This Forum to Your Site
Get a FREE message board
View By: Thread Topic Date not logged in
Log In | New Account
Up to Msg List | Send to a Friend | Help << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Author Message Go To Page 2 3 >>
CLUB211
02/13/01 7:19 PM
problems with compatibalism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This question is directed to those of you who have fully embraced open theism:
What are the major problems that open view sees in a compatibalist view of divine foreknowledge/human freedom? Given the Calvinist assumption that 1) Scripture teaches that God ordains and causes all that comes to pass and 2) humans make willing, responsible choices with real effects, choices for which we will be held accountable, what problems does open view find in accepting this? I am not wondering if this is the Biblical teaching, or if open view adheres to this line of thought (obviously not), but I'm wondering (faulty interpretation of Scripture aside) what practical, theological, spiritual, etc, problems/implications open view sees in accepting this line of thinking. Can we not accept it as a mystery, something that has not been revealed, or is this dangerous or problematic in some way?
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
GregBoyd
02/13/01 7:56 PM
RE: problems with compatibalism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the site Club211:
Thanks for the question.
If I believed that Scripture clearly taught both that God controlled everything that comes to pass AND that humans make free, morally responsible choices, I'd be compelled to conclude that this is a paradox we must simply accept. D.A. Carson argues for this conclusion in his well argued book Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility. However, for reasons I give on this site (see under Spiritual Warfare: Response to "Compatiblistic" Texts) and elsewhere (e.g. God at War; God of the Possible), I do not agree with Carson's conclusion.
This is fortunate, I believe, for so far as I can see, the assertion that God controls our free morally responsible actions is devoid of meaning. That is, I don't have any conception of what a "free morally responsible action" might mean that doesn't RULE OUT it being "controlled." So far as I can speak meaningfully, I can claim that an action is a "free morally responsible action" only to the extent that it is NOT controlled. To be perfectly redundant (and repetitious ), the concept of "free morally responsible action" CONTRASTS with "action controlled by an agent outside of oneself." What I mean by asserting the first is that I'm denying the latter.
SO, when a person says "agent x performed a free morally responsible action," I see this as having meaning only if it contrasts with the statement "agent x performed an action that was controlled by an agent other than x."
Note, it doesn't matter if that "other agent" is God or king George or Satan. If the action didn't originate in agent x; if agent x couldn't of his or her own volition have done other than they did in performing this action; than I DON'T KNOW what it means to say that agent x performed a "free morally responsible action." When Calvinists assert this, I honestly can't get a concept in my head that corresponds to their words. The assertion "God sovereignly predestined and controlled Judas' evil behavior" LOOKS like a meaningful sentence, but it is equivalent to the assertion "John ingeniously created a beautiful circle with four perfectly straight sides."
Here's a challenge I've publically issued for over five years and have yet to receive a good reply. Indeed, I've issued it before on this site, and several have tried to respond, but quite unsuccessfully in my opinion. The challenge is this:
Since all meaning is rooted in experience, either directly or by analogy -- we cannot speak meaningfully about that of which we have no experience -- can anyone provide an analogy to give meaning to the assertion:
"Agent x exhaustively controlled agent y's action, but 'in such a way' (as the Westminister Confession says) that agent y was 'free and morally responsible' for performing this action, not agent x." ?
More precisely, can anyone provide an analogy to give meaning to the notion that "agent x exhaustively controlled agent y carrying out a MORALLY EVIL action, but 'in such a way' that agent y is RESPONSIBLE for the evil, not agent x?
Last time I posted this, Meph2k and some others came back with several scriptural citations (e.g .Ac. 2:28; 4:28) where (on their interpretation) God predestined people to do wicked acts. Note three things about this, however:
A) This doesn't answer the question I'm asking, for I'm requesting someone to render the very CONCEPT of God (or King George, or Satan -- it doesn't matter) predestining or exhaustively controlling an evil action 'in such a way' that God is all holy while the people predestined are wicked (for doing what God predestined them to do!) Until this is answered, showing me a verse in Scripture that (you think) shows this only leads to the conclusion that there are some meaningless verses in Scripture.
B)There are other ways of interpreting these "compatibilistic" verses that don't require this paradoxical (contradictory/ meaningless) conclusion. (e.g. See my response to compatibilistic texts in the Spiritual Warfare section of this site).
C) Your question was about the logical incompatible of morally responsible freedom and divine control, not exegesis. So invoking exegesis to talk about my response to your question is out of bounds -- unless you want to change the question.
There you go Club211. I'd enjoy it if some of the Calvinist brothers and sisters who visit the site would take a stab at the challenge. All others are welcome as well.
Until someone out there rescues this poor Open Theist by finding SOME WAY of rooting in my experience (by analogy) a concept of one agent determining another agent's action while the determined agent is yet responsible for what they do, not the determining agent, the notion shall in all honesty remain for me utterly devoid of meaning.
Blessings,
The Doc.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Shine150
02/13/01 11:08 PM
Is God Satan?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hello homie tribe of fellow theologians.let me tag-team with the doc. check it out.
if doc is right and its really meaningless to say one agent determines another agent who is nevertheless morally responsible for doing what the first agent determined he'd do, then in Calvinism the distinction between God and Satan is meaningless.
ouch, i know. but chill, hear me out.
i know Calvinists want to insist to death that God is all holy,pure, can do no evil, etc... and that Satan is nasty, evil, demented, etc... BUT, if God preordains what Satan does, and there's no meaningful way to conceptualize how Satan is evil for doing what God preordains he does, or how God is holy for ordaining what Satan does, then bros, the insistance that God is all holy while Satan is evil is meaningless.
it comes to this... the only thing that keeps God from being Satan in Calvinism is a meaningless insistance that it just ain't so. again, i'm not in any way shape or form calling into question that utter utter complete uncompromising undiluted and pure sincerity of Calvinist who insist on it. i love you Calvinists! i'm just pointing out that despite your holy intentions, your distinction between God and the Devil dude is meaningless.
come back at ya, even if doc is wrong and its not totally meaningless -- SOMEONE GIVE HIM HIS ANALOGY! -- still, its at least counter-intuitive. So at some level people are going to be inclined to see God as responsible for all the s--- in the world.
so what's the problem with compatiblism Club asks. well, it virtually makes God responsible for all evil... ultimately destroys any meaningful distinction between God and Satan... no small theological error.
ps. did you know that Wesley actually said (i think his sermon on grace... someone fill this in) that the God of Calvinism was WORSE than the devil? true. cuz with the devil you know what you're getting. with the God of Calvinism, you have the same stuff, but now you have to call him all holy for ordaining it!
one final problem with compatiblism. if everything is taking place by the will of God, why fight it? you say, "cuz God says to." fine. but its one thing to do a meaningless deed out of sheer obedience. its another thing to do something you REALLY see makes a difference. you can't do the latter if you believe God ordains everything.
and THIS, dearest friends, largely explains the impotency and apathy of the western church.
i personally worship a God who "cannot look upon evil" -- let alone ordain it. (Habbakuk someplace). i personally believe we are called to follow Jesus and radically and passionately revolt against evil as something Satan brings about in the world against God's will, and that our revolting makes a HUGE difference in what comes to pass.
this is when christianity starts to ROCK dudes! totally
and this is why i think the openness theology is so very important.
sleep on it.
and tomorrow
Shine at 150
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
02/13/01 11:58 PM
RE: RE: problems with compatibalism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Boyd: I just wanted to say thank you. You put into words what I have always felt. When I debate with Calvinists I can never express in words what you have just stated. The two concepts (determining and being responsible for your actions) cannot be reconciled in a way because they cancel each other out. Anyway, I just wanted to drop you this note to say thanks for putting into words...John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Yorzhik
02/14/01 12:43 AM
RE: problems with compatibalism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The best argument I've seen from Compatibalists is that of foreknowledge being separate from foreordaining/predestination. In other words, God knows the future, but He doesn't cause it.
On the surface, this explanation is reasonable for a moment. But a logically thinking person will go on to ask if there is any variation in the foreknowledge of God. Can anything happen except the ridged sequence of events foreknown? According to this explanation, no. And again, beyond that, even we feeble humans can understand that to know about evil and not work against it is just as evil, if not more evil, than the evil itself (Deut. 21).
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
02/14/01 6:15 AM
Hmmm...The Analogy Quandary...Again?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oooh. The temptation is too friggin great. I shouldn't have even bothered to check the board, but now I'm torn...I saw so much stuff here...oh, the wife's gonna kill me...Break in hiatus! LOL
***********************************************
Doc says:
That is, I don't have any conception of what a "free morally responsible action" might mean that doesn't RULE OUT it being "controlled." So far as I can speak meaningfully, I can claim that an action is a "free morally responsible action" only to the extent that it is NOT controlled. To be perfectly redundant (and repetitious ), the concept of "free morally responsible action" CONTRASTS with "action controlled by an agent outside of oneself." What I mean by asserting the first is that I'm denying the latter. (Emphasis Boyd)
Mephi:
Now, people. Let's analyze the statement above. What does Doc seem to be saying? To me, his statement PRESUPPOSES that freedom, in his conception, is of such a nature that it completely precludes exhaustive determination. (Man, have we been kicking this rock around the block or what?) On what basis, besides experiential and supremely intuitive reasoning, does Doc hold this view of freedom. Supposition alert. Supposition alert!
*************************************************
Doc said:
"If the action didn't originate in agent x; if agent x couldn't of his or her own volition have done other than they did in performing this action; than I DON'T KNOW what it means to say that agent x performed a "free morally responsible action." (Emphasis Boyd)
Mephi:
Hmmm...(Brandon, if you are there, check this out). Do y'all know why Doc uses the word "agent" many times? Because I suspect that he holds to the human agency theory. Brandon, it is THIS reason why I used the term so much. Agency theory is held by libertarians nowadays. Why? Because many of them, for the most part, gave up on incompatibilism as being too loaded with problems. Am I right, Doc? If so, then maybe you can understand my sheer disbelief at what you are saying. I've studied agency theory pretty thoroughly, not only in it's philosophical conception, but also what I feel is the primary psychological concept behind it: the emergence of the social learning and cognitive theories of human development. That's how I can truly say, with such confidence, that I believe that agency theory IS INDEED compatible with some forms of determinism, even EXHAUSTIVE determinism qua theological distinction. Can you show me where this is NOT so? As I've said before, maybe I've been reading ALL the wrong stuff...
***************************************************
Doc says:
More precisely, can anyone provide an analogy to give meaning to the notion that "agent x exhaustively controlled agent y carrying out a MORALLY EVIL action, but 'in such a way' that agent y is RESPONSIBLE for the evil, not agent x? (Emphasis Boyd)
Mephi:
Doc, from what I see in my records, you once made statements along a different, yet similar vein concerning your desired analogy, LOOONG time ago.
"This represents what I consider to be one of the most signficant flaws in Reformed theology: there is NO WAY to render intelligible the idea that WE are responsible for things that GOD has predestined us to do. I have asked for analogies that might render this supposition intelligible for five years and have yet to receive one."
So when did it become a matter of being just MORALLY EVIL acts that we are talking about? Was there a specific time when it began being a matter of exclusively morally evil acts that we are talking about? Hmm...
Readers, ask yourselves a big question. WHY does Does specify only MORALLY EVIL acts? I'll say it again. WHY DOES DOC SPECIFY ONLY MORALLY EVIL ACTS? As Doc currently has it, the thought behind it could be stated thusly:
"According to my conception of freedom, any agent X cannot be exhaustively controlled by any other agent Y such that agent X carries out a MORALLY EVIL action, and at the same time be considered RESPONSIBLE for the morally evil action."
This is very important to acknowledge. Why? Simply because it informs the whole dynamic. It would have been one thing to say the following:
"Can anyone provide an analogy to give meaning to the notion that "Agent X exhaustively controlled Ageny Y to carry out ANY, I repeat, ANY action, but 'in such a way' that Ageny Y is RESPONSIBLE for the action, and NOT Agent X."
The thought behind the statement above would be as follows:
"According to my conception of freedom, any agent X cannot be exhaustively controlled by any other agent Y such that X carries out ANY action, and at the same time be considered RESPONSIBLE for the that action."
Notice how the my statement and thought above, in contrast with the Doc's, are MUCH more inclusive. It includes good acts AND bad acts. Actually, it would be a BETTER statement for rational discussion at hand. The problem that Doc poses should NOT be morally slighted like it is...and I think that he knows that. But I think I know why this occurs. The following is from an online article entitled "Helping God Help Us Help Ourselves" by Randy McGregor, an atheist writer who writes for Internet Infidels, an atheist/agnostic/freethinker website (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/mcgregor1.html):
"If you are looking for an answer to the nagging question of why religion persists, you can find it hanging on the walls in the homes of countless believers. It is the sappy Christian anecdote, "Footprints," about a troubled soul who fears that God has left him when he looks back after a trying journey and sees only one set of footprints. Where, he wonders, are the footprints of the God who once accompanied him? Before the absurd notion that he’s been walking by himself gets a chance to take root in his mind, God reassures him that the one set of 10EE’s are God’s very own. It turns out that God had carried the man through the hard times. The moral of the story: Lack of evidence for God is not a problem if you just apply a little theological creativity (and some nice embroidery). This little story is only one example of the pervasive religious tactic of finding clever ways to give God the credit for what humans have so clearly done for themselves.
Mephi:
The basic thesis of his article is that Christians have a very big tendency to want to give credit to God for the things that would otherwise CLEARLY seem to come from themselves. Very interesting. It's a VERY good read. I notice also that this trend, for some Christians, really seems to only take place with the GOOD things that they do or that just occur. I think this is just a thought that somehow emerges from the belief in a "good" God. Notice how this concept is distinct from being a "colaberer with God" somewhat. There is a difference between God HELPING us do something and God working THROUGH us to do something. It seems like a substantial amount of Christians are comfortable with BOTH concepts.
[Digression: Do you ever notice how often Christians will say things like that? "God really used me today!" LOL Do people ever really stop to think about the suppositions BEHIND that oh-so-pious statement?]
But, let's be real about this. Why is this done almost COMPLETELY for good acts and not for bad acts? Coming back directly to Doc's point, why is it only EVIL acts that we have to take into account. Philosophically speaking, if it is LOGICALLY impossible for secondary causation agents (as opposed to the primary causation) of moral evil acts to be responsible for said evil, then LOGICALLY, the concept extends to ANY act, evil or good. One would have to give some pretty cogent argumentation about how secondary causation agents CAN be responsible for good acts, even though a primary causative source exists, while in EXACTLY the same manner, the same secondary causation agents CANNOT be responsible for bad acts. This is completely CONTRADICTORY. Surely, you guys see this!
Thus, I say that if Doc is going to be consistent, then we HAVE to say that God cannot exhaustively control any agents for ANY acts whatsoever, good or bad, and those SAME acts be "free" in any type of meaningful way, according to how Doc describes freedom...but that leads me to my next point....
**********************************************
ON DIVINE REVELATION
I think it's fair to bring this back up, since someone has already brought back the "Biblical Authority" thing. There is a view of Scripture called the "Verbal Plenary" view of inspiration. What this view says is that God, through his Holy Spirit, had SUCH providential control over what the inspired authors wrote, that the very words and phrases that they wrote were inspired in the original documents. This even extends to grammatical construction.
[Digression: Notice this is how many evangelicals go against the Jehovah's Witnesses conception of John 1:1]
I'm bringing that whole thread back up here, because I want any and all readers to see it. But I will summarize it here. The verbal plenary view SPECIFICALLY states that THOUGH the authors of the Scriptures were human beings operating from their OWN personalities and theologies and what not, that GOD was the ultimate author of the Scriptures in its entirety! Now, let's go back to the statement that I made...
""Can anyone provide an analogy to give meaning to the notion that "Agent X exhaustively controlled Ageny Y to carry out ANY, I repeat, ANY action, but 'in such a way' that Ageny Y is RESPONSIBLE for the action, and NOT Agent X."
I think that the verbal plenary view would fit the bit NICELY, don't you? Think about it. Look at all of the Pauline epistles and how he introduces the letters. It is clear that HE believed himself to be the AUTHOR of those epistles. And the authors of the Old Testament as well. They thought themselves to be the authors of their particular writings. But how can this be reconciled with the believe that the Scriptures are GOD-BREATHED, in fact being the very words of God? LOL The adherents to the Verbal Plenary view say the following:
"God exhaustively controlled the biblical authors such that they wrote EXACTLY what God wanted them to write. God did this 'in such a way' that the author's theological, cultural, and personal idiosyncrasies shone forth in the writing, thereby making it authentically THEIR writing, and NOT merely dictation. There was NO mysterious force that compelled the authors to write against their wills. There was NO compulsive force that MADE them write exactly what they wrote, completely autonomous to their wills. On the contrary, the authors wrote what they wrote through and BY the exercise of their wills as they percieved themselves to have the FREEDOM to do so."
Hmmm....do YOU see some similarities, dear reader? I think I do. Now, let me say something here. The verbal plenary view is NOT a minority view in evangelical circles. Far from it. I'm not saying that because it is substantial that makes it true, but I AM saying that, for a great many Christians, this is an ACCEPTABLE reconciliation of divine sovereignty and human freedom and agency. AND accepting the verbal plenary view would tacitly DENY the viewpoint that secondary causation agents CANNOT be responsible for any action, if a primary causation agent is present. Thus, to me, the analogy that Doc wants so badly has existed among evangelical circles for YEARS now! Biblical Inspiration!
It is for THIS reason that I think that Doc specifies only MORALLY EVIL acts. If one were to swallow his challenge wholesale, with no critical thinking, then biblical inspiration would NOT constitute a morally evil act and, thus, be outside of the parameters of the challenge. It is my hypothesis that you specify evil acts predominantly because, if you don't, then my analogy of biblical inspiration may have quite an effect on your conclusions...but I could just be deluding myself.
Here's the bottom line. If one holds to verbal plenary inspiration OR think that verbal plenary is a plausible source of biblical inspiration, it would be PLENTY HARD to argue that you don't have an analogy for what Doc wants. Doc, I believe your analogy has already been presented to you. You just don't accept it. I don't really know WHY you won't accept it...but whatever...
For the complete context to all of this, I invite, but not require, all to read both the "Biblical Authority" and "An Analogy for Compatibilism" threads. (Club211, this especially applies to you, my friend) Again since the Biblical Authority thread was already resurrected and open for viewing in the present, I figure this is fair. Perhaps, dear reader, that will show you even further, what I am saying.
Ok. NOW I'm going to rest for real....PLEASE don't tell my wife you saw me here...LOL
In Christ Always,
Mephistopheles 2K
To Shine:
You say:
"SOMEONE GIVE HIM HIS ANALOGY!"
Mephi: It's done, bud.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
02/14/01 7:04 AM
Still waiting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I KNEW Mephi couldn't resist THAT bait!
4 brief points will suffice for my response.
1) Your "hermenuetics of suspicion" (a phrase from Paul Ricoeur where you suspect something else is going on in an author and interpret them accordingly) that I derive my view of freedom from "experiential and supremely intuitive reasoning" is off base and only serves to skirt the challenge I raise. I'm just looking for meaning Meph. I don't know how to give words meaning unless there's something in my experience I can attach words to. If you know of a different way of making words meaningful, please share it with me. And I'm just looking for what you mean when you or any compatiblist say "God exhaustively controls free moral agents." YOU seem to know what this means, so I'm just asking for you to communicate this with me. WHAT CONTENT do these words have for you? If the content isn't grounded in experience, at least by analogy, what supplies the words with meaningful content?
2) Your "hermenuetics of suspicion" regarding why I specified God predetermining EVIL acts is also off base and serves only to skirt the issue I raised. You'll note that in my posting I first asked about the compatibility of divine determinism with ANY free morally responsible acts. I then made a more "precise" challenge -- it fine tuned the problem -- with regard to evil acts. It's helpful to consider issues in their most problematic form, so I'd ask you to give an analogy that renders coherent the idea that an all holy God predetermines/exhaustively controls an agents "free, morally responsible choice to do an evil deed" 'in such a way' that the agent is responsible for the deed, not God.
3) Your "hermenuetics of suspicion" regarding why I use the word "agent" (e.g. could it be that I hold to a particular agency theory, yada yada) is also off base and only serves to skirt the issue I raised. For the purpose of this challenge, I don't give a rip about the particularities of an "agency theory." For the purpose of this challenge, I or you or anyone can use any term they want: how about "homosapien chooser"?
What I'm asking for Mephi is simply for YOU to tell me what meaningful concept YOU have of the phrases "God exhaustively contols" and of "free morally responsible homosapien chooser" when you put these two phrases together, because when I do it I get "God sovereignly creates a perfectly square triangle." I suspect you have the exact same content, but don't notice it.
4) As before, your verbal inspiration "analogy" is not anything like an analogy. Even if we grant your insistence that God would have to exhaustively control the biblical authors for them to be inspired (why?), and even if we grant your insistence that the biblical authors had to be "free morally responsible homo sapiens" when they were exhaustively controlled (why?), this would still only serve as another EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM. It hardly provides an analogy by which we can gain some light on WHAT IT MEANS for God to exhaustively control free moral agents... i mean, "homosapien choosers." This is no different than appealing to a Bible verse which (on your compatiblist interpretation) illustrates God exhaustively controlling homosapien choosers as they freely and morally responsibility choose evil acts. Until I can give meaning to the phrase "God exhaustively controls the free morally responsible actions of homosapien choosers," it won't help to insist (quite arbitrarily) that "God exhaustively controlled the free morally responsible actions of the homosapien choosing biblical authors."
So, I still honestly don't have a clue what Mephi or other compatiblists MEAN when they talk about God controlling free morally responsible actions. I'm still waiting.
Sincerely,
Doc.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
02/14/01 10:26 AM
RE: See If You Like This...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc,
Well, your bait worked. LOL First of all, part of your #4 is dealt with in the last post of the "Analogy" thread. Second, I'm gonna go ahead and throw this out for you to chew on. I crafted this post at the end of last year. This was going to be the one I unveiled in January, but I forgot ALL about it. My earlier post today helped me remember. It's a bit dated but I think it gets its point across. Hopefully this will kind of give you a feel for where I'm coming from. Attack it as you will, and I'll respond later.
Dead As A Doornail,
Meph
*****************************************
Attempt #2: The Storywriter
There exists a screenwriter. She has created a movie that has as it's main character "Bob" The movie the majority of Bob's life, from birth until about age 45 (think "Forrest Gump") She structures the circumstances of Bob's life such that, at age 22, Bob is placed in a positon where he may or may not commit a heinous murder against an innocent named Vallie. Because she knows ALL of the factors, involved with Bob and his immediate environment (he is HER character, after all),she knows (and writes) that Bob, of his own volition, goes ahead and murders Vallie and suffers all the corresponding repercussions, including incarceration.
Questions:
1) Who is immediately responsible for Vallie's death in the movie?
2) Who is ultimately responsible for Vallie's death in the movie?
I say:
1) Bob
2) The screenwriter
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS:
Now let me attempt to anticipate some problems here...
1) "Well, is this saying that we are merely actors in God's play? We're not real?"
Reply:
The problem with this is it obviously forgets the context of the discussion. God is the ARBITER of reality. What he declared became reality. It's idiotic to consider the product of the arbiter of reality itself UNreal. The same thing goes for the nebulous concept of "inauthenticity"
2) "Bob is not responsible for his actions. They were planned before he ever came to be. It's not his fault."
Reply:
Hopefully, everyone sees the problem of this thought. Any sense of fatalism means that Bob couldn't do anything else EVEN IF HE WANTED TO. But this is not the case with Bob. Bob could have done something else (not murdered Vallie), but he made the CHOICE to kill her within the context of the script. It would have been different if it were "prophesied" to him in some arcane way that he WOULD kill Vallie and he struggled with all his might against that action, only to fail. That would be tacit fatalism. Do you see what I'm getting at here?
3) "In order for Bob to be truly responsible, NO outside will could be bearing upon him. He would have to be completely "free" in every way."
Reply:
Responsibility has contexts AND boundaries. Bottom line: The ONLY thing that Bob is truly aware of is his self-evident, prima facie ability to make choices and THAT from his own will and volitions. The screenwriter is not planting ideas in Bob's head SUPPLANTING Bob's will. That would be like someone hypnotizing another person to the point that the second person seemingly WILLINGLY wants to do an action. Even though that second person genuinely thinks that they are doing an action of their own free will, they are deceived. PLEASE note the difference between this and what the screenwriter does. The screenwriter constructs the environments and the characters such that, if the characters possessed their own sentience, their volitions would indeed be their own, not any type of "being zapped" by an outside force. I hope that this is clear.
4) "Now, come ON, Meph. How in the world can God have a genuine relationship with a mere actor, and not a real, reciprocating being?"
Reply:
Hmmm...I would ask what is a "genuine" relationship with God. To me, it seems like we make the assumption that intersubjectivity amongst persons logically entails that there MUST be some aspect of mystery for BOTH parts. This assumption is based on the libertarian idea of free will. This facilitates communication and learning about one another. This assumption is also the cause for the caricature about "trying to have a relationship with an mere computer who does everything you want." If this is not problematic, I have no idea what is.
Here's the logic, as I see it...
"Human beings can't have intersubjective relationships with objects that they know exhaustively. The closest thing that would fit that bill would be an artificial intelligence computer. The human who programmed that computer could never truly have a "real" reciprocating relationship with the computer. He knows all the computer's responses. There would be no novelty. There's no way that the computer could "love" the creator, even if the creator programmed loving statements and behaviors into the computer. Something would be lacking. It would be boring, if nothing else. Hey, if it's this way for humans, then it could very well be this way for God, too."
Well, if this is indeed the thinking, then I would suggest that those who hold such thinking rethink what they mean by the word "real" and "authentic" I don't see how this avoids the implication that would state this...
"God's love for humanity is NOT genuine if exhaustive predestination is true."
I, for one, ain't got the guts to say some stuff like that. But hey, whatever. If the arbiter of all reality gives human beings the power of volition according to His will and holds us accountable for our actions as a result, I don't see anything wrong myself.
BRINGING IT CLOSER:
5) "But God acts IN history. It seems like you are positing a deistic system where God doesn't enter in at all."
Reply:
Nope. Let's go back to the analogy. What if the screenwriter writes HERSELF into the screenplay? (This does happen, you know...) Playing herself, she interacts with the Bob in the play at specified PREWRITTEN times and ways in the play. It has to be noted that the screenwriter's actions are her OWN actions that she decided beforehand she would do act specific times in the play.
6) "Meph, you're smokin' something, buddy. If she's forced, in any way, to follow her own script without improvisations, then isn't she merely a slave with no free will of her own?"
Reply:
Can she be accused of merely being a slave without any free will? Heck, no! She was the one who planned the whole play INCLUDING her actions in it. Everything was according to what she wanted in the first place. Beforehand, she made the free choice about how and what she wanted to do, and she made it so. How much more freedom can she have as a screenwriter?
7) "Well, Meph, let's take you at your own game. Can the playwright REALLY blame Bob for murdering Vallie? I mean, no matter what, it all boils down to the fact that she planned that Bob murder Vallie. How can that be fair?
Reply:
Hehe...Romans 9:19
One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
It would seem this question has already been asked before, now wouldn't it? You can try all the exegetical acrobatics that you choose on Romans 9, but this particular question and its answer seem terribly evident what is it meant here. Bottom line: We don't ask the question. We operate by the power of volition that is prima facie available to us, and leave it at that. To do otherwise is to charge God with wrongdoing. If you want to do that, be my guest. But be honest about it. We would do wise to act pragmatically on these matters. I see Open View Theism as an attempt theologically to create a metaphysic that 1) stays true to the human perception of self-efficacy and 2) eliminate any possibility for the "horrible decree". Unfortunately, some people equate predestination with practical fatalism. I could go into the sheer idiocy of trying to use your power of volition to truly live in a fatalistic manner, but I don't think that will be necessary.
So, what's up now?
In sum, I think this is a pretty good one. What do you think, Doc? Does this fit the bill? Holla back...
Warmest Regards,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
02/14/01 11:03 AM
Strike one and two
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still waiting...the question Doc brought up actually has been on my heart for quite some time and I am glad he brought it up. The point, to me, is that the concepts of (what I will call) complete soveignity and responibility for choice are, for those who believe in (what I call) true free will are akin to the square and the circle. They are completely opposite terms and it would seem that determinists could do a better job in reconciling the two. I believe, though, that, as with the square and the circle, they are more akin to the divine mystery and, as such, it would seem that the attempt is basically feeble to began with. This is not to mean that I am critising those who attempt such a thing. I applaud such a thing. I know I couldn't even attempt such a thing.
But, for me, it seems that in daily life it would be something we would cry "foul" to if it happened to us. If you got up this morning and someone put a chip in you that made you do everything they wanted you to do for that whole day and one of them was to cheat on your wife, naturally the day after you would plead with your wife and show her the evidence that it wasn't your choice, but this other person. Now, I know those who believe in determinisn will cry "foul" at this analogy but the point is that this is how I see determinisn and I have seen nothing that would disprove such a view. To take the view of the storyteller and somehow assert that, within the script, Bob has the choice not to kill when he must follow the script, well, I think that needs no response.
So I am still waiting...this is something I hope will bear fruition. Even if I still disagree with the view, I would like to see an analogy that actually presents the opposite of what I believe in terms that I can truly understand. Until then, it is still meaningless to me. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
CHF
02/14/01 12:18 PM
RE: Hmmm...The Analogy Quandary...Again?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Mephi...great having you back for a bit! I would like to say only a couple of things, and ask a question.
First of all; when you say this: "To me, his statement PRESUPPOSES that freedom, in his conception, is of such a nature that it completely precludes exhaustive determination. (Man, have we been kicking this rock around the block or what?) On what basis, besides experiential and supremely intuitive reasoning, does Doc hold this view of freedom. Supposition alert. Supposition alert!" I completely agree. Not to psychoanalyze you Dr. Boyd, but it is apparent you assume your conclusion before you prove it. There is a great article that I read on God of the Possible. I left the link on another thread, but I think the thread died before anyone got to see my linkage: http://www.bgc.bethel.edu/4know/implsbla.htm
Next, I have a question for you Mephi. I kinda got a little lost on one of your points...if you wouldn't mind putting it in "Craig terms" that would be great...here is what you said:
"Why is this done almost COMPLETELY for good acts and not for bad acts? Coming back directly to Doc's point, why is it only EVIL acts that we have to take into account. Philosophically speaking, if it is LOGICALLY impossible for secondary causation agents (as opposed to the primary causation) of moral evil acts to be responsible for said evil, then LOGICALLY, the concept extends to ANY act, evil or good. One would have to give some pretty cogent argumentation about how secondary causation agents CAN be responsible for good acts, even though a primary causative source exists, while in EXACTLY the same manner, the same secondary causation agents CANNOT be responsible for bad acts. This is completely CONTRADICTORY. Surely, you guys see this!"
I am sorry! I am a little lost here! Thanks alot
Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
02/14/01 10:30 PM
RE: RE: See If You Like This...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, time for a brief response to Meph. the bait biter (who may soon be divorced) ): But first a preliminary word to CHF.
CHF, you quote Meph’s statement; “ On what basis, besides experiential and supremely intuitive reasoning, does Doc hold this view of freedom. Supposition alert. Supposition alert!" You add,
“I completely agree. Not to psychoanalyze you Dr. Boyd, but it is apparent you assume your conclusion before you prove it.”
CHF, could you or someone explain to me the meaning of this? I simply ask for an analogy to give the concept of one agent exhaustively determining another to do evil, but in such a way that
the determined agent is responsible for the evil they do while the determining agent remains holy. How does asking this question constitute me “assuming my conclusion before I prove it?”
Now onto Meph’s supposed “analogy” that purportedly renders the compatibilists view coherent. Sorry Meph, nice try, but it fails. I’ll give two arguments.
1) Meph is convinced Bob is not fated in Vallie’s play. He says “Any sense of fatalism means that Bob couldn't do anything else EVEN IF HE WANTED TO. But this is not the case with Bob. Bob could have done something else (not murdered Vallie), but he made the CHOICE to kill her within the context of the script.”
As certain ancient Greek tragedy writers saw, fate is not only about the inevitability of someone doing something EVEN IF THEY DON’T WANT TO. Fatalism is more profoundly about the inevitability of someone WANTING WHAT THEY WANT. Homer is especially profound on this. For Homer, almost all people (with few exceptions) are controlled by a force (fate) that determines their desires.
So Meph, you’re contention that “any sense of fatalism” means what you say it means is historically and philosophically mistaken. Your analogy of Bob in the play may escape your first, more shallow definition of fatalism. But, like the tragic war heros/victims of the Illiad, Bob falls victim to fatalism in the more profound sense. Before the character of Bob was born (created by the screenwriter) it is certain both that he shall murder Vallie, and shall WANT to murder Vallie. It is, in the most profound, ancient Greek, sense of the term, fated.
2) Meph’s analogy postulates that the screenwriter “knows ALL of the factors, involved with Bob and his immediate environment (he is HER character, after all), she knows (and writes) that Bob, of his own volition, goes ahead and murders Vallie and suffers all the corresponding repercussions, including incarceration.”
Think about this carefully. Bob is “HER character, after all.” The screenwriter WROTE Bob. So the screen writer writes that her character, Bob, will OF HIS OWN VOLITION murder Vallie.
Which is it Meph? Is Bob WRITTEN by the screenwriter? Is Bob “the character” OF the screen writer? Or does Bob do what he does OF HIS OWN VOLITION???
Perhaps Meph will say, “Both, Doc. And you only insist that it can’t be BOTH because you presuppose that Bob must be AUTONOMOUS FROM the screenwriter to have his own volition. You presuppose your autonomous libertarian free will.”
Well, I don’t want to insist on anything, at least not for the moment. I’m still trying to understand what on earth your saying!!!
We’re back to square one. Would you please give me AN
ANALOGY whereby I can give some semblance of meaning to the idea of a screen writer creating a character, writing a character, it being “her character,” but ‘in such a way’ that when that character murders someone, the character is “free and morally responsible” and thus guilty, while the screenwriter who created the character is NOT. I don't know about you, but I've yet to read a book or see a movie or play in which I actually thought the characters were guilty for what they did. If they're following a script written by a screen writer, they AREN'T GUILTY.
UNLESS, of course, they are free to rebell against the script (as they SHOULD if it involves murder). But THAT would mean the screen writer didn't exercise exhaustive control over the agent -- which was the point of the analogy in the first place!!!!
What we have here is not an analogy that renders intelligible the idea of one agent exhaustively determining another to do an evil deed, but ‘in such a way’ that the determined agent is guilty
while the determining agent is innocent.” Rather, what we have here is simply a restatement of the problem. Or worse, a reassertion of the meaningless position itself. It doesn’t help.
So, sorry Meph. A valiant effort. Yet, I’ve still got to decry, “I’m still waiting.” Doc.
Ps. You’re final appeal to Rom. 9:19 was a) irrelevant to the issue we’re discussing on this thread; the issue is philosophy, not exegesis (read the openning thread); and b) based on a particular
Augustinian interpretation that you assume is so obvious that to deny it is to engage in “exegetical acrobatics”, but which I (silly me) think is utterly fallacious (see the Roman 9 thread months ago. Or check out chapter 4 of my God of the Possible).
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
02/15/01 12:15 AM
RE: RE: RE: See If You Like This...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc-
What’s the difference between our inability to produce a meaningful analogy for “a predestined act of free will” and our inability to produce a meaningful analogy for the Trinity? That is, when we assert plurality of persons (or hupostasis, or whatever word we choose) and yet a single nature, are we not asserting something like “a square circle”? Yet we submit to it simply because the Scriptural evidence for it is overwhelmingly clear on this point. And since there exists no adequate analogy for the Trinity, why expect one for other aspects of God’s nature (his predetermining will for example)?
Devil’s Advocate
(Tom)
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
trosie
02/15/01 2:09 AM
RE: RE: RE: See If You Like This...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Doc:
It's almost 2:00 AM and while I am laying in bed I got this idea for an analogy for your question. It's an internal not an external control, however. The bible says that we are the body of Christ. Well, in the human body the brain is the control panel that operates and "controls" all of the other bodily functions. The brain ultimately controls all the other areas of our body and yet if an organ becomes impaired or ceases to operate productively we don't blame the brain for this. No, we say that the organ is faulty. So there you go -- the brain controls the organs but takes little if any blame if an organ ceases to operate correctly. What do you think? Does this work for the analogy?
Even if my analogy worked though it doesn't do anything to alter the open view. My understanding of the open view is that God doesn't know all the details of the future because the future hasn't happened yet. The open view is the only logical way to explain how God would create people who end up in hell. If God foreknew that a person would wind up in hell it wouldn't make sense for an "all-loving" God to have created the person in the first place. The open view is the only way to explain why God would have created Lucifer in the first place too. If He fore-knew that Satan would fall, why would God have created him?
SO, even if a person had the perfect analogy for your question it wouldn't diminish the way that the open view is able to explain so many things. What do you think of this analogy that came to me in this wee hour of the morning? Just curious -- I love to learn!
I'm going back to bed now,
trosie
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
02/15/01 7:32 AM
Response To Tom and Doc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer Before You Read The Essential Post:
I realize that some of you think my stuff is long. Sorry about that. Please keep in mind that:
1) You have all the time in the world to READ and respond as you will. You don't have to respond to me right away or even at ALL. For me, this is to promote thought and have some good interaction, not just to generate interesting, yet rushed response posts.
2) You don't need to respond to everything I say. Just pick out the salient points and go from there. Scan through it, take the meat, spit out the bones. If you want to skip to the end, I have a list of summary ideas that you can just look at to save you some time. This should reduce your frustration, ok?
3) My wife has let me back in the house. I hooked up Valentine's Day and plus she knows that theology, like ministry, is in my blood. She just says for me not to let the blood pressure get too high, if you know what I mean. LOL
Continue on...
**************************************************
Dear Tom,
Whoohoo, Tom! Man, I just HAD to applaud to that one. That's EXACTLY the point. EXACTLY. Hmmm...maybe THAT's why we've had Apolloniarianism and Monophysitism, and such. People couldn't HANDLE the 3=1 concept. Hmmm...Square circles, just like you said. Also as I remember, Modes spoke to me about basically the same thing with respect to christology. When I made the statement:
"if libertarian free will cannot be maintained as logically consistent or coherent as a viable outlet of human freedom, then it cannot be used as a presupposition for Christian theologizing."
Modes quickly noted the apparent overly rationalistic tone and made an example out of the incarnation. Honestly, he was right to do so, because I should have made it much clearer that all of this was taken IN REGARD TO THE CONCEPT OF COMPLEMENTARITY. In other words, in the cases where the full disclosure and analysis of evidence will FORCE us to make conclusions that appear contradictory. The Incarnation was a great example...as is the TRINITY, which Tom brilliantly applies.
[Digression: For real, Tom, you've got a VERY sharp mind on you. I mean that. ]
Now, Doc, from what I understand of compatibilists, they say that complementarity is EXACTLY what they are doing. Because the evidence won't let them do otherwise. Ever heard of "dynamic tension"? You know...the term that Lion and I had been throwing around for about the past 3 months? I can see their point. You are not denying the use of complementarity in theologizing, now are you?
****************************************
Dear Doc,
Ok. Let's really look at this thing, ok? This is what you say that you want, Doc...
"I simply ask for an analogy to give the concept of one agent exhaustively determining another to do evil, but in such a way that
the determined agent is responsible for the evil they do while the determining agent remains holy."
Mephi:
In other words, Doc, you are looking for a HUMAN way to describe that a sentient being A who is significantly directly or INDIRECTLY responsible for evil acts of another sentient being B under A's control is not in any way responsible for being B's behavior. Let's be real, Doc. You and I know that this is NOT forthcoming. We've BEEN knowing this, now haven't we? We both know it's simply not possible, from a human perspective. LOL And let's be honest about it. How many human beings that you know could do HALF of the stuff the Biblical God is attributed to doing in the Bible and come out looking COMPLETELY righteous looking under our sense of morality? Absolutely none. I repeat, absolutely NONE. You and I both know this, Doc. Admit it! The only reason why we say that God is holy and good, even in the midst of seeing the breadth of his acts is our APPEAL TO MYSTERY. We basically assume that since God is good, he must have some mysterious good or loving purpose for what would be seen, in any HUMAN context, to be blatent disregard or gratuitous evil. Think about Judas' act in your conception. If any human being could do what God did to allow Judas to do what he did, do you really think that any "just" judge in the WORLD would say that said human being was not IN SOME WAY responsible for what Judas did? Heck, no. They would say that without doubt that human being was at LEAST a conspirator. Do you see what I'm getting at here? This will get into what I think about theodicy later in this post.
*******************************************
Doc, you say:
"Perhaps Meph will say, “Both, Doc. And you only insist that it can’t be BOTH because you presuppose that Bob must be AUTONOMOUS FROM the screenwriter to have his own volition. You presuppose your autonomous libertarian free will.” (Emphasis Boyd)
Well, I don’t want to insist on anything, at least not for the moment. I’m still trying to understand what on earth your saying!!!"
Mephi:
Just a suggestion. Has it ever occurred to you that the reason why this doesn't make sense to you is your PRESUPPOSTIONS about "freedom", "responsibility", "guilt", etc.? THIS is what CHF is saying and this is what I've been saying, ad nauseum. Things are unintelligible for REASONS. Think about why the religious terms including God make no sense to logical positivists. Think about why Bultmann felt demythologization necessary in the first place. Presuppositions. Because of presuppositions, logical positivists, who are consistent, REALLY think that "God" has no meaning. Because of presuppositions, Bultmann REALLY felt that the Bible needed to be demythologized because of all the fanciful and miraculous stuff in it. Do you see what I'm gettting at here?
is anyone else getting tired of me asking for open view suppositions besides me? I haven't been asking for your presuppositions for my health. It's EXTREMELY important to this entire process. THAT you feel something is unintelligible is not nearly as important as WHY you feel that way. The very reason why you, Doc, and I disagree with both Bultmann and logical positivists is because we recognize that their suppositions were suspect to begin with. Don't you think that you could be guilty of the same thing? I do. That's why I've asked you (and any other open theist) to completely spell out their presuppositions. I'd really like that from YOU, Doc. I could try to surmise again from your statements what your supps are, but I'm going to try something different right now. With the "Convert the Open Theist" thing, I have completely exhausted my creative resourses to try and ascertain fuller view of your suppositions. Plus it didn't seem to get me much but disdain and what have you. So I will simply ASK again. Could you please provide us with your suppositions on which your open view theism is based? Please? PRETTY please? PRETTY, PRETTY, please?? I really don't think what I'm asking is that hard. We can even start with ONE concept: Your notion of freedom with respect to reality. I'm on my proverbial knees begging. PLEASE do this for me, great one, PLEASE!
**********************************************
My Analogies
Let this be said. My analogies will never fit the bill as you have it. Nor can anyone's. Perhaps that why you've been on a five year drought of sorts. What my analogies are MEANT to do is render the concepts behind what you speak INTELLIGIBLE in significant ways. With the first analogy about the biblical inspiration, I basically show how the PARADIGM behind the enigma you find has already been, in some way, accepted and dealt with. Otherwise, the entire verbal plenary view would be seen as completely unintelligible (NOTE: Modes is consistent as he says that he doesn't AGREE with VPI, but note this is far from saying that it is unintelligible) With the second analogy, I basically show how human agency with respect to divine sovereignty may work out and how it can be viewed analogically. You will note that in the second analogy, one can see:
a) Bob's effect on his world. This shows his agency in said world.
b) The scriptwriter's freedom, even under the prospect of being IN the play.
c) The primary and secondary causation
d) The HINT that theodicy is neither possible, nor necessary
e) The absurdity of living a "fated" life EXISTENTIALLY.
I had hoped that my analogy would make this things INTELLIGIBLE and I think that they did. What I hear you (and others) saying, basically, is that my schema doesn't justify God as being holy or "all-good" in the midst of evil. If anything, it makes God ultimately behind the evil. (Right, Brandon?) But if you remember my position in nearly ALL of my posts before now, you know that itwas NEVER my intent to justify God. My intent was to render the important concepts intelligible to you for you to either accept or reject. Again, I think that I did that.
*********************************************************
On Theodicy
If you are wondering where my analogies come from, I'm surprised. Surely, you've read what my perspective is. I've placed it over and over again. I'll do it again here. From my 01/30/01 6:56 PM post.
"[Brandon wrote] Really, why don't you just blame God for evil? Even allowing for the "freedom" of the individual, God sure seems as if he "steered" it such a way as to make him not just *ultimately* responsible for evil, but *really* ulitmately responsible for evil."
Mephi:
Indeed I do. Though sentient beings who are not God (angels, humans, etc) are the ones who of their own volitions commit evil acts, God, due to who He is, is ultimately behind all the events that we see in history. I never shy away from that claim. My story kind of alludes to that and I've pretty much stated it flat out in some of my earlier posts. I have no problem with that at all. All things work according to God's purposes in the end."
and...
"I affirm this: God is above good and evil, by the very nature of his being sole creator of a melioristic universe. It is absurd to refer to God as "all-good" (as many people understand the term) and acknowledge the vast amount of evil in the world, without in some way either 1) turning to nominalism (William of Ockham and, in some ways, Gordon Clark style) which tends to reduce the whole argument to tautological statements about God's morality [ex. God's acts are God's acts] or 2) doing violence to the very notion of "good". I do think that, given a type of natural theology that looks at the life-affirming paradigms that promote human fluoring and the amelioration of suffering, we can see by Creation something of God's character, as far as what human beings should be doing to promote life, health, and wholeness. I also believe that God's self-revealing acts in history, including the supreme revelation of God, Jesus the Christ, show that God is FOR the "good". In sum, though God is the ultimate originator and controller of both good AND evil, He reveals His nature to be FOR the good and AGAINST the evil and sin prevalent in the world, and encourages us likewise."
and...
"If I may simplify things, to me God has erected a big obstacle course called "life" That God knows this course exhaustively is pretty much irrelevent. In this course, we are to work for good and oppose the evil. Jesus is the epiphany of God, as it were, that gives us not only the perfect model, but also the perfect MEANS through which to oppose the cosmic mutiny. We are to use our power of choice to work for against Satan and recognize God's supreme rule, according to my view of redemptive history. What does this show you? There IS a plan. A plan that works for the ultimate glorification of God, the chief of all "goods" A reality that, like a great painting, has a certain amount of light AND shadow in order to make a masterpiece."
As you can see from my statements, I have wrestled with exactly what you are saying. I have been a very ardent student of theodicy. From the silly "Best Possible World scenario" to "the Free Will defense" I've read 'em all. I even counted your whole motif behind "God at War" in the light of theodicy. And let me be as honest as I can be, ALL, I say again, ALL of them are seriously lacking. They all have some "cookies", if you will, that provide some temporal sense of comfort in the midst of existential pain. Some even have a way to promote the melioristic spirit in humanity to really propel us to help OVERCOME the evil. (I think that this is ONE similiarity between the open view and process theology.) But bottom line: I believe there IS no adequate theodicy. Think back to when I told Beso that God NEEDED no justification. I come to this conclusion from reading many theistic and atheistic takes on the theodicies themselves. When you REALLY examine them... ALL of them...they really do come up pathetically wanting. In some way, God is diminished (but considered mysteriously "greater" for being diminished) in order for the theodicies to have any meaning. And then they still don't really answer all the tough questions about the HUGE AMOUNT of evil that we have in the world. It has been said that the TRUE test of a theodicy is if it can be stated in the presence of screaming, burning children and still have meaning to the parents. Do we honestly think that ANY theodicy we've created up to date can pass this test? Heck, no. I admit this without reservation. I mentioned Gordon Clark before. Though he may overstate his case, I believe that he is one of the most CONSISTENT people in reconciling the problem of evil with the characteristics of God qua Christian worldview. And he doesn't shy away from the consequences either.
As I have seen it, different theodicies suit different people. Some people really buy into the free will defense. And some really buy into the best possible world thing. I am convinced that they do so because, existentially, they have NO OTHER CHOICE if they want to keep their faith. They could not go on in their respective Christian faiths without them! For real. Now, let's be honest. How many people have you heard this type of thinking from...maybe in this room:
"Without the open view, there's a good chance that I wouldn't even be a Christian."
Now what is the tacit underlying meaning for this statement? Simply this. The open view provides answers to the existential evils and things that people see that are emotionally and "rationally" satisfying. And it's all wrapped around basically the same question. Shine said:
"if doc is right and its really meaningless to say one agent determines another agent who is nevertheless morally responsible for doing what the first agent determined he'd do, then in Calvinism the distinction between God and Satan is meaningless."
and Trosie said:
"If God foreknew that a person would wind up in hell it wouldn't make sense for an "all-loving" God to have created the person in the first place. The open view is the only way to explain why God would have created Lucifer in the first place too. If He fore-knew that Satan would fall, why would God have created him?."
Do we realize how many people believe think this way? Many, I assure you. I'm not saying that the questions being raised are invalid. They are completely valid. But my perspective, honestly speaking, is that I believe that some people (not all), let the disdain for anything resembling the "horrible decree" get the best of them in gathering their conclusions. Even here on this board, my personal belief has been referred to as "dysfunctional" because of what it incorporates (Yep, I remember that...) But one thing cannot be said. It cannot be said that my belief is inconsistent in any major way. That, I fairly know for certain. Why? Because, along with intense prayer and study, I present my theology and philosophy of life to so many quarters for it to be "shot down" as it were, that by the time it finally emerges, it comes through as through a refiners fire. As I've said before, I try to do as much interfaith dialogue as I can. From this I have a considerable amount of atheist compadres. Anyway, one of them, an ex-Christian, did his masters thesis on the problem of evil called (I got to help him on it. He owes me. LOL) We had an honest talk during the process and he said this to me, in essence:
"You know what. I understand and relate to what these people are attempting to do. They want, no, NEED to see God as all-good. And they have these schemas from whence they try to accomplish the task. But in all honesty, they truly all fail. I wanted to believe that these things could work, but the more and more you look at them closely, the more and more absurd they get when discussing things like surd evil. I don't like your view, man, and I couldn't worship or respect your view of God, but at least I can say that you are CONSISTENT. You don't find that much amongst Christian theologians."
I took it as a compliment...and recognized it, from my own reading, to be a serious truth. The point of all this was not to brag on myself. The point was to give just ONE instance of how our attempts to justify God can look so rediculous to other intelligent, and LONGING people...and almost look like flat out copouts. It is also to point out that, if we don't make our beliefs completely open to scrutiny, we could very well be making ourselves look quite foolish when we don't need to do so.
[Digression: I find reading atheistic takes on theodicy VERY helpful. Even when you sort through the atheistic, naturalistic suppositions, they are still very effective because they don't have the obligation of faith. Sometimes the faith that we possess often puts blinders on us that causes some of us to say some very wierd stuff that is believable to us but completely ASININE to others. I read about this one person who actually asserted that a significant majority of natural disasters were caused by demonic forces, not merely forces of nature. Alrighty then. LOL ]
[To Modes: Be honest, man. Isn't the whole theodicy thing JUST as contrived at times as the whole "biblical inerrancy" thing, with just as many problems of qualification and REqualification. I KNOW you know what I'm talking about.]
Confession time. Look, I wish that I could just be pragmatic about all this. I've honestly thought about it. "Hey, if people just believe in the Lordship of Christ and stand against evil, why should I even bother? Let them believe what they want to believe, regardless." But, I just cannot do so. It just plain irks me. (Remember the LaQuanita, Goddess of Flatulence thing?) Now to be sure, I think people are free to believe what they want to believe (and chances are that they will believe what they want to believe regardless anyway) There is no way that I would ever try to deny that right. However, in the context of the free exchange of ideas, I feel almost duty bound to challenge any and all ideas that I see to be incomplete, illogical, or straight up screwed, given evidences for what I believe. All this is done in the context of opening myself up to the same process. This is what Tom and I were discussing, I believe.
Like I said, I believe that truth, no matter WHAT it is, is better than fiction, and I'm willing to struggle and strive for it with all my being. Can't do any less.
***********************************************
Summary of Post:
1) Tom made an EXCELLENT point about inferring the idea of complementarity with respect to the evidence.
2) A suitable analogy that fits Doc's specific requirements as it stands will never be forthcoming from any Christian quarter.
3) I really, really, REALLY, want Doc's presuppositions on open view theism. If he doesn't have time for that, AT LEAST do one: his idea of freedom as it relates to reality. (Anyone who would aid my quest is welcome to respond)
4)My analogies were to attempt to make certain concepts intelligible, not to have the EXPLANATORY power that Doc obviously wanted.
5) I think that God is completely sovereign, such that God is ultimately responsible for all evil and good. Also, I do not think there is, or ever will be, ANY adequate theodicy for a theistic view of God.
***************************************************
Peace,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
02/15/01 8:45 AM
RE: Response To Tom and Doc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi2K: I applaud your honesty. I could never believe as you do (God as contradiction...he condemns sin yet is ultimately responsible for it), but I applaud your honesty in being upfront about it. However, it still seems you appeal to divine mystery. Doc is asking for an analogy that will show him how this could be, as a human. But aren't we all? We ask to understand God everyday, as humans. As you are in your writings, as each of us are, as people. The only way we understand God at all, is as humans. You are trying to understand God as a person, finite and all. Your answer is really just an appeal to the fact that you believe a certain way and yet you do not understand it and, as I said before, there is no analogy to reconcil the two, but you believe it and, when pressed, simply admit that God is the originator of the two and we don't understand, nor can we. And while I will always grant that (for there is much we do not and cannot know about God), you should grant that, being God is a contradiction (or, at the very least someone who appears to be a contradiction), or at least understand why it is so hard for others not to believe as you do. For many, to have God both be evil and good (for all practical purposes), is simply too confusing and God ends up being someone not counted on, someone not interested in a person's well being, but only for his own glory. Say what you want about God's glory, but if people don't believe God truly loves them and that is truly intrested in what's the best for them, they aren't going to be much interested in praising his name. God must be a practical God to win the hearts of his children and a God who cares more about his plans than his children is not a God that is going to receive widespread devotion anywhere. Did enjoy your response though. I guess I missed some of those responses elsewhere, but I got to admit, a refreshing bit of honesty. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
02/15/01 9:17 AM
To Writer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writer,
Thanks for the compliment. Just wanted to make a quick note to a wonderful remark you made.
You said:
For many, to have God both be evil and good (for all practical purposes), is simply too confusing and God ends up being someone not counted on, someone not interested in a person's well being, but only for his own glory. Say what you want about God's glory, but if people don't believe God truly loves them and that is truly intrested in what's the best for them, they aren't going to be much interested in praising his name. God must be a practical God to win the hearts of his children and a God who cares more about his plans than his children is not a God that is going to receive widespread devotion anywhere.
Mephi:
I also thank you for your honesty. I REALLY found the section above interesting. Perhaps you can see the problem that I have with a lot of religion and spirituality today, even outside of Christianity. It's not about recognizing the reality of God anymore. Spirituality is SO self-centered (or at least HUMAN centered) nowadays. It's about what God can do for US (human beings) and how God can help US and how God relates to US positively. [Note: This type of thinking is quite rife in SOME charismatic circles] Your statement was very informative. But I have to wonder. If what you say is true---that basically praise and attention to God is predominantly based upon His positive regard for us---I don't see how we are not just USING God as a coping mechanism for life, or worse yet, a totem of some type that we cast aside if it doesn't suit our emotional or existential needs. The anthropocentrism of theology. Maybe it's just me, but I don't like it. I may be alone on that, but that's how I feel. Again, thanks for the accolades and the honesty.
'Preciate ya,
Mephi2k
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
twomeeks
02/15/01 11:20 AM
RE: RE: problems with compatibalism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Boyd,
Thank you for thoughts on this issue. I will attempt an answer to your position on this, but I must admit that if the use of scripture is out of bounds, you have taken away my most effective tool. Afterall, I don't believe that broken humans beings can accurately appraise truth without the guidance of God's special revelation.
As I have studied the scriptures I have identified both of these themes...Divine Sovereignty/control and human responsibility. Apparently you also have read plenty of scriptures and have been at the work of discerning the relationship between these two "biblical concepts." If I understand you right, rather than holding these two truths together in tension, you have decided to abandon the Divine Sovereignty/control of God to allow for human responsibility. My first question for you is this. Why did you opt to abandon Divine Sovereignty/control rather than Human responsibility. If your proposition is true, that the two cannot be held logically together, by what standard did you choose one over the other?
My second question for you is this: Have you ever read Freedom of the Will, by Jonathon Edwards. I assume, if you are a scholar on this topic, that you have. If not, I would encourage you to do so. Edwards offers the best logical case I've heard for the reconciliation of Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility. Freedom of the Will was the source of theological debate for a century. Sadly,few who discuss this topic today have ever read Edwards' writings.
Third, I have an analogy for you. Have you seen the movie, "The Game"? I would be interested to discuss it online with you. I don't know if Hollywood intended this theme or not, but it portrays a logically coherent example of a person making real, responsible choices while being under "sovereign" control. If you are interested in continuing this discussion, please watch "The Game" and respond with your analysis. As with any analogy, this analogy breaks down at some points, but there is enough there to give us a little better grasp of the concept.
Trusting the Scriptures,
J. Meek
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
A_Pilgrim
02/15/01 12:32 PM
RE: A required analogy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Room,
Dr. Boyd is still waiting for the analogy and will always wait. Mephi you are right to say there will never be an analogy which satisfies Dr. Boyd. Tom you are right that OVTs must give an analogy for accepting the Trinity (and every other doctrine) if Dr. Boyd’s desired analogy is required prior to belief.
Will we ever understand the Trinity in this life? No, and maybe not in the next! Do we believe it? Yes! Why? Because we have an analogy in the human experience that makes it so comprehensible? No! We believe it because God’s Word declares it, however much that revelation falls short of explaining it. We are limited to what God has revealed about himself. It is patently obvious that God has given sufficient revelation for us to believe the doctrine of the Trinity. However, he has not given us sufficient explanation how he exists in three persons. God simply says, “Trust me that what I say is true. You don’t need to know how or why it is true.”
By what authority do we have the right to demand an analogy in human experience by which we can place our calipers upon God? It seems to me that we do not have any calipers and to think we do is audacious and sin. Inevitably, the demand for calipers does not produce faith, but unbelief. God does not command us to understand so that we might believe. Rather, he expects us to believe so that we might understand him, however faulty our understanding is. Such is the nature of his revelation/concealment motif which permeates all of Scripture.
All that we know of God is anthropomorphic and analogical. And it is just a glimpse. From his greatness that he has revealed, we know we cannot wrap our minds around him and all his works. If we puny humans could, we would not have much of a God. Let us be satisfied with the analogies used in Scripture, for we have a strong tendency to ignore them or be unaware of them, and turn rather to mechanistic or psychological analogies by which to understand God, which is another form of rebellion against him.
Pilgrim
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
02/15/01 2:56 PM
RE: To Writer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi2K: Yes, I do struggle with that. Am I simply using God to make myself feel good, am I using God to get what I want...the list could possibly go on forever. I find myself, many times in prayer, caring little about whether or not God is honored by my requests and am really just wanting him to give me what I want and get out of the way. Perhaps human beings are in such a mess that, in these days, that is the only way people can truly relate to God. I hope not. But there is a sense in the gospels that many of the people who found their way to Jesus were hopeless and only came to him through their hopelessness and found refuge in him through that. I am not saying that we shouldn't strive past that and mature, but there is, perhaps, part of humans that is all about need and being little children and maybe we maybe never outgrown such a state (at least not part of it). For instance, as much as I critisise Penecostals, there is a part of me that wants a miracle so I can look (what is it?), cool, better (pick a word). I am not sure what the answer exactly is, but it is a struggle. But I think it is basically true that people come to God out of need. While I still have needs, I hope I can also, at the same time, give God his due as best as possible. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
02/15/01 3:30 PM
RE: RE: A required analogy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Pilgrim: Your response (what right do we have...) assumes that your view of the issue (divine soveingty/free will) is the correct one. That is a presumption that not all would accept. Therefore, I find it faulty. Second, where in the Bible does God say, just trust me, you don't need to know how or why this is true. Christianity is a religion based on knowledge and evidence. It is not a faith blind. As far as an analogy for the Trinity, we are one (mind, body, spirit), water is one, at a certain temperature it can become liquid, solid and gas. No, we can never fully understand God but there is nothing wrong with finding analogies to help us understand him better. Faith comes by hearin, and hearing the word of God.
There are many issues in the Christian walk that are complicated. There is nothing wrong with healthy debate. God is not afraid of our questions. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Go To Page 2 3 >>
Up to Msg List | Send to a Friend | Help << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Community Moderators: adiaphora
Site-Specific Moderators: springs
Jump To: cdearmond's Forums Christus Victor Ministries
Christus Victor Ministries
This site is part of the Christus Victor Ministries Community
GET A FREE MESSAGE BOARD. CLICK HERE.
Add This Forum to Your Site | Get a Free Message Board | Browse Other CoolBoards
What is CoolBoard? | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | ©1999-2000 CoolBoard.com
Copyright © Christus Victor Ministries, 2000, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:23 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 |
|
|