 |
 | 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/27/2003 8:45 PM (GMT -6) |   | Mephi-
I must be a nincompoop  because I don’t see anything “huge” in what you’re saying. It’s precisely what we’ve always said in disagreeing with compatibilists. I’ve never thought we refuse to agree that God is capable of unconditionally determining human action, that he’s metaphysically incapable of coming up with the mechanics of it. And I don’t think Doc believes God is “metaphysically” incapable of 1st type compatibilism, which is simply unconditionally determining the choice(s) of an agent. I’d be interested in hearing what he says. In my mind the whole disagreement with compatibilists is, as you say, over whether or not God hold agents morally accountable for such unconditionally predetermined actions. Where’s the news in this?
The only new item I see so far is your agreeing with compatibilists that God unconditionally predetermines the salvation and damnation of some individuals but disagreeing with them that God does this with everybody. I’m eager to see the exegetical arguments for this “some but not all” view in the case of salvation. This will be "huge."
Here’s the thing. We’ve argued that God is certainly capable of having created an exhaustively determined world. God can “do the mechanics” of this, including tossing into hell whomever he wants and allowing into heaven whomever he wants. This is “possible” at the sheer brute force or divine muscle level. No problem. If this much is conceding with you, then I concede.
But there is, I agree, a metaphysical price tag for doing this. Just as there is a metaphysical price tag for drawing a circle (namely, it can’t be a triangle or a square), or a metaphysical price tag for getting married (namely, no longer being a bachelor), there is a metaphysical price tag for exhaustively determining agents (namely, the agents are not morally responsible or capable of love). Not being "able" to hold agents responsible for what they are unconditionally determined to do is not a “weakness” of God’s. On the contrary, it a weakness of what is being proposed that in asserting that God has successfully drawn a square circle nothing meaningful has been attributed to God. My reason for not agreeing with the compatibilist that God holds us accountable for what God unconditionally predetermines that we do is not some metaphysical limit to God, as if what is proposed IS a meaningful act which I believe God cannot perform, but rather the sheer meaninglessness of the proposition. You gather that I probably DO find this coherent and meaningful but that I refuse it because it goes against what I think is “just.” Actually, I do find it meaningless and incoherent. And asking you for an analogy is not a “trap.” You admit that no analogy exists. That doesn't exempt you from the need to provide one if you want to claim that "unconditionally predetermined morally responsible behavior" is coherent. In my view this is the “huge” item. If reality and life provide you no analogy for understanding “unconditionally predetermined morally responsible behavior,” then don’t claim that I refuse to believe it just because it goes against what “I” think is "just." That suggests, by the way, that it goes WITH what YOU understand to be just, in which case I’m perfectly in my right to ask you to explain your sense of “just” with an analogy. Your not being able to provide one says nothing about MY view and everything about YOUR view.
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/28/2003 1:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
quote:
But there is, I agree, a metaphysical price tag for doing this. Just as there is a metaphysical price tag for drawing a circle (namely, it can’t be a triangle or a square), or a metaphysical price tag for getting married (namely, no longer being a bachelor), there is a metaphysical price tag for exhaustively determining agents (namely, the agents are not morally responsible or capable of love). Not being "able" to hold agents responsible for what they are unconditionally determined to do is not a “weakness” of God’s. On the contrary, it a weakness of what is being proposed that in asserting that God has successfully drawn a square circle nothing meaningful has been attributed to God. My reason for not agreeing with the compatibilist that God holds us accountable for what God unconditionally predetermines that we do is not some metaphysical limit to God, as if what is proposed IS a meaningful act which I believe God cannot perform, but rather the sheer meaninglessness of the proposition. You gather that I probably DO find this coherent and meaningful but that I refuse it because it goes against what I think is “just.” Actually, I do find it meaningless and incoherent. And asking you for an analogy is not a “trap.” You admit that no analogy exists. That doesn't exempt you from the need to provide one if you want to claim that "unconditionally predetermined morally responsible behavior" is coherent. In my view this is the “huge” item. If reality and life provide you no analogy for understanding “unconditionally predetermined morally responsible behavior,” then don’t claim that I refuse to believe it just because it goes against what “I” think is "just." That suggests, by the way, that it goes WITH what YOU understand to be just, in which case I’m perfectly in my right to ask you to explain your sense of “just” with an analogy. Your not being able to provide one says nothing about MY view and everything about YOUR view.
Hmmm…
This will help. Just GO with me on this, Tom.
1) Explain to me, in very careful detail exactly why the proposition is incoherent and/or meaningless to you.
2) IF I were to say this:
“I believe that as long as a person has ANY FREEDOM WHATSOEVER that they are morally responsible for all actions that they actively do…EVEN IF said actions are being unconditionally directed by another force such that it is a CERTAINTY that they would not do otherwise.”
What EXACTLY would you say about this? Would you say this this statement is LOGICALLY INCOHERENT and/or MEANINGLESS (that it makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever)…or would you say that I am INCORRECT in what I’m saying?
Indulge me just a bit longer, Tom.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/28/2003 2:32 AM (GMT -6) | |
Tom:
quote:
I’ve never thought we refuse to agree that God is capable of unconditionally determining human action, that he’s metaphysically incapable of coming up with the mechanics of it. And I don’t think Doc believes God is “metaphysically” incapable of 1st type compatibilism, which is simply unconditionally determining the choice(s) of an agent. I’d be interested in hearing what he says.
Ask him. I really believe he will say that, given God’s desires for creation, which entailed certain self-limiting creational factors, God COULD NOT be capable of 1st type compatibilism…because in doing so, he would be CONTRADICTING the type of creation that he wanted to create. This becomes a metaphysical limitation on Creation because God is Creator.
Now, here’s the thing. He says that God wanted an existence where 1) love (as he understands it) can exist and 2) where a self-determined, freely chosen Bride is possible. As I’ve told him before, God would NOT be abandoning these chief ends, if God were to allow for 1st type compatibilism. The ONLY WAY that God would be negating God’s own purposes with 1st type compatibilism is if God applied it to ALL sentient beings at ALL times.
Think about it. Let’s say hypothetically that God were to say “Ok. I’m going to unconditionally determine the salvations of 1/10th of all people that exist” Would this NEGATE God’s chief purposes of love existing and a self-determined freely chosen Bride? Heck, no! Why? Because God has a whole 9/10ths of OTHERS to deal with. See what I’m saying?
Doc main issue is that he doesn’t want to say that God AT ANY TIME for ANY PERSON either saves or damns them by 1st type compatibilism. But my point is this: Given what Doc says are the CHIEF MOTIVATIONS behind God’s creation and the open view metaphysical system itself…there’s no good reason he can say this! There’s no real exegetical reasons, either. Our discussion about “greater good” arguments and the glorification principle showed that.
I truly believe it comes back to a view of WHAT IS FAIR and WHAT IS LOVING. Doc wouldn’t believe that it would be JUST, FAIR, or LOVING for God to compatibilistically allow even ONE PERSON to go to Hell. Doc acts like there could be absolutely NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON for God to do so. But I’ve been trying to tell him: that’s HIS issue, not the issue of the worldview!
*******************************
Tom:
quote:
The only new item I see so far is your agreeing with compatibilists that God unconditionally predetermines the salvation and damnation of some individuals but disagreeing with them that God does this with everybody. I’m eager to see the exegetical arguments for this “some but not all” view in the case of salvation. This will be "huge."
Both sides acknowledge that the “universalist” texts are relativized by other factors. Both sides would say that Scripture leads us to believe that NOT ALL people will be saved…and that God ultimately WANTED all people to be saved. Now here’s what doesn’t seem to be understood. BOTH SIDES have a form of the “greater good” argument by which they resolve this. The assumption at base is this: If God COULD have saved everyone, then God WOULD have. Where many compatibilists and open theists disagree is on the WHY, meaning “WHY God couldn’t save everyone” As a matter of fact, the even agree on THIS on one level. Both sides would say…
God would have LOVED to have everyone spend eternity with God, but because of his glorious plans for Creation and the TYPE of Creation God wanted, it wasn’t possible for God to do this.
THIS recognition is one of the things that made the “glorification principle” possible. In this regard, Greg Boyd and John Piper would NOT be different at ALL from one another! So, the true distinction would lie in thinking about WHAT WERE GOD’S PLANS FOR CREATION!
This is QUITE important. This is why I keep saying that open view theism is NOT THAT far away from Calvinism in certain respects. But the rhetoric has been so played up that it seemed that neither side could really see this. What I believe the glorification principle does is deal with God’s plans for creation…and in so doing, describes how and WHY it’s NOT an all-or-nothing thing with respect to 1st type compatibilism. The concern of ALL things being truly God centered and for GOD’S glory…and the concern for genuine freedom and asymetrical, but actual reciprocity between human beings and God CAN BE RESOLVED.
For all these reasons, I don’t think that exegesis of the relevant texts would not disprove my claims at all.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/28/2003 2:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Here’s something like what I typed above earlier.
There are just going to be SOME PEOPLE who won’t like the idea of God being able to compatibilistically save or damn even one person
and…
There are just going to be SOME PEOPLE who won’t like the idea of God knowing even one thing as a pure possibility. (Oh, the "threat" of the "maverick molecule"!  )
These people are who I’m referring to when I’m thinking “ALL-OR-NOTHING”
These are the people who, I believe, are going to be the hardest to convice…if they WILL be convinced at all.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/28/2003 2:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Let me drop another quick thought.
Think about this, y’all. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that God DID do both, meaning that there were some people who were compatibilistically saved or lost…AND that other people were able to, after Spirit enablement, choose to glorify or continue rejecting God.
Is there ANY WAY POSSIBLE that any of us could tell the difference between the two groups?
No?
Then…
OF WHAT PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE IS THE CONSTANT PROBLEMS WITH SAYING THAT GOD DOES BOTH??
Because we don’t know and couldn’t know, we’d be doing the SAME THINGS that we are doing now (hopefully), meaning witnessing to Christ in our lives, living those lives daily, and praying that others come to be with Christ through our life witness and by other means.
I just don’t get what the big DEAL is…besides some IMHO overblown “which God is more glorious” conversation.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/28/2003 3:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: I really believe he will say that, given God’s desires for creation, which entailed certain self-limiting creational factors, God COULD NOT be capable of 1st type compatibilism.
Tom: Doc’s already admitted, for example, that if God unconditionally predetermined Cyrus’s parents to name him Cyrus, that his parents were not morally free in this regard. Likewise regarding Cyrus’ vocation.
Time for Doc to chime in.
Mephi: Think about it. Let’s say hypothetically that God were to say “Ok. I’m going to unconditionally determine the salvations of 1/10th of all people that exist.” Would this NEGATE God’s chief purposes of love existing and a self-determined freely chosen Bride?
Tom: It negates it for the predetermined 10th. THEY lie outside the scope of God’s purposes for Creation. They are created for some OTHER purpose, one which does not include love and morally responsible behavior.
Mephi: IF I were to say this: “I believe that as long as a person has ANY FREEDOM WHATSOEVER that they are morally responsible for all actions that they actively do…EVEN IF said actions are being unconditionally directed by another force such that it is a CERTAINTY that they would not do otherwise.” What EXACTLY would you say about this? Would you say this this statement is LOGICALLY INCOHERENT and/or MEANINGLESS (that it makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever)…or would you say that I am INCORRECT in what I’m saying?
Tom: Absolutely incoherent. Honestly bro.
Mephi: Doc main issue is that he doesn’t want to say that God AT ANY TIME for ANY PERSON either saves or damns them by 1st type compatibilism.
Tom: I’d agree. But this is not to deny that God EVER works by 1st type compatibilism. It’s only to deny that God ever saves and damns by 1st type compatibilism. Why in the world, Mephi, would you want to say God ever saves and damns people unconditionally?
Mephi: …for God to compatibilistically allow even ONE PERSON to go to Hell.
Tom: I don’t know what “compatibilistically allow” means.
Mephi: …Doc says that God wanted an existence where 1) love (as he understands it)…
Tom: You did this with “just” and now with “love.” You qualify it by pointing out that it’s just the understanding of the person in question, as if there are other acceptable understandings out there. So let’s have YOUR understanding of love. Do you know of a definition of “love” that is consistent with being unconditionally predetermined? Do you know a definition of “just” that is consistent with punishing unconditionally predetermined choices? Do you know a definition of “freedom” that is consistent with being unconditionally predetermined by another? I’m all ears. If you cannot make sense of these, then what are you attributing to God in claiming that he performs them?
Mephi: As a matter of fact, the even agree on THIS on one level. Both sides would say…
God would have LOVED to have everyone spend eternity with God, but because of his glorious plans for Creation and the TYPE of Creation God wanted, it wasn’t possible for God to do this.
Tom: I certainly wouldn’t sign on to this.
But let’s hear from Doc for a spell.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/28/2003 3:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: Is there ANY WAY POSSIBLE that any of us could tell the difference between the two groups? No?
Tom: That’s right.
Mephi: Then…OF WHAT PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE IS THE CONSTANT PROBLEMS WITH SAYING THAT GOD DOES BOTH??
Tom: Because when I look at a person and share the gospel I tell them “God loves you,” not “There’s a chance God loves you and a chance he doesn’t.”
quote:
Here’s something like what I typed above earlier.
There are just going to be SOME PEOPLE who won’t like the idea of God being able to compatibilistically save or damn even one person
and…
There are just going to be SOME PEOPLE who won’t like the idea of God knowing even one thing as a pure possibility. (Oh, the "threat" of the "maverick molecule"! )
These people are who I’m referring to when I’m thinking “ALL-OR-NOTHING”
These are the people who, I believe, are going to be the hardest to convice…if they WILL be convinced at all.
Well, I’m the only one in this discussion right now so I guess you’re reposting this for my sake? Cool. Let’s see if I can do this too :
There are just going to be SOME PEOPLE who won’t like the idea of God equally desiring every single individual who ever lives to know and enjoy his love forever and endowing every individual person with the one sort of freedom that makes knowing and enjoying divine love possible. These are going to be the hardest to convince…if they WILL be convinced at all.
Give me SOME reason Mephi for believing God would unconditionally predetermine the eternal damnation of a single person. What notion of “glorification” are you working with that is exalted and fulfilled in God's doing this?
I'm hoggin the thread guys. Sorry. Chime in Doc.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/28/2003 4:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
quote:
Tom: Doc’s already admitted, for example, that if God unconditionally predetermined Cyrus’s parents to name him Cyrus, that his parents were not morally free in this regard. Likewise regarding Cyrus’ vocation.
I think I remember this. But that’s when, as I recall, we got into the discussion about how it didn’t make sense just to limit God’s 1st type compatibilism to JUST things he felt were morally insignificant. There was no reason to put such an arbitrary limitation there. After that, it seemed to me that Doc basically let that whole idea go.
**************************
Tom:
quote:
I’d agree. But this is not to deny that God EVER works by 1st type compatibilism. It’s only to deny that God ever saves and damns by 1st type compatibilism. Why in the world, Mephi, would you want to say God ever saves and damns people unconditionally?
Actually, I think you would deny 1st type compatibilism for any action that could be deemed morally significant before God, because that would bring up the moral culpability stuff. As far as why I’d want to say that, I want to say it because it CAN be said. I find no convincing reason why it SHOULD NOT be said.
***************************
Tom:
quote:
I don’t know what “compatibilistically allow” means
Sorry for being unclear here. I was trying to make sure to note in this description that God doesn’t MAKE someone not choose God. Because of sin, we do THAT for ourselves. So God wouldn’t be compatibilistically MAKING someone choose against God. God would just be ALLOWING them to continue on their path, by withholding the rejuvenation action of God’s spirit. That’s what I meant to say. It wasn’t clear.
*****************************
Tom:
quote:
You did this with “just” and now with “love.” You qualify it by pointing out that it’s just the understanding of the person in question, as if there are other acceptable understandings out there. So let’s have YOUR understanding of love. Do you know of a definition of “love” that is consistent with being unconditionally predetermined? Do you know a definition of “just” that is consistent with punishing unconditionally predetermined choices? Do you know a definition of “freedom” that is consistent with being unconditionally predetermined by another? I’m all ears. If you cannot make sense of these, then what are you attributing to God in claiming that he performs them?
Ok. Maybe THIS will show why I don’t see this stuff as meaningless.
I believe that our definitions HAVE to include God and how God operates with the world and Godself. This means that my definitions on some things may be EXPANDED to account for this. For example, with love. People want to say that love REQUIRES freedom. But this just doesn’t WORK when we talk about the 3 NATURALLY OMNIBENEVOLENT persons of the Trinity loving each other. Therefore, our definition of love MUST be expanded. Instead of just trying to use the old “necessary being vs contingent being” stuff, just EXPAND the definition of love. Love doesn’t necessarily require freedom, IN ALL CASES.
Same thing with this. There seem to be indications that God really CAN HOLD people responsible for things that GOD initiates. Need I mention the whole David counting the people thing? God basically INCITED David to count the people and then PUNISHED THEM for it. Now, we HAVE to account for this. And any morally respectable person on the PLANET would probably tell you that it was UNJUST of God to do that! But hey, it happened. Instead of making some type of convoluted explanation, let’s just EXPAND our definition of moral culpability. It is NOT ALWAYS THE CASE that a person must be able to NOT do an action to be morally culpable for said action.
Our defintions have to INCORPORATE, not attempt to explain away, God’s actions.
************************************
Tom:
quote:
God would have LOVED to have everyone spend eternity with God, but because of his glorious plans for Creation and the TYPE of Creation God wanted, it wasn’t possible for God to do this.
Tom: I certainly wouldn’t sign on to this.
Oh, is that right? You wouldn’t say that if there was ANY WAY POSSIBLE that God could have saved all people, that he WOULD have? You wouldn’t say that what prevented God from being ABLE to would be his unswerving integrity to Godself and God’s purposes? You wouldn’t say that God’s PURPOSES include God’s plans for and design for Creation?
If you wouldn’t say any of that? If not, I’m quite surprised!
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/28/2003 4:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Don’t worry about hoggin the thread. It’s here for everyone. If they choose, anyone can speak up.
Tom:
quote:
“There are just going to be SOME PEOPLE who won’t like the idea of God equally desiring every single individual who ever lives to know and enjoy his love forever and endowing every individual person with the one sort of freedom that makes knowing and enjoying divine love possible. These are going to be the hardest to convince…if they WILL be convinced at all.”
Give me SOME reason Mephi for believing God would unconditionally predetermine the eternal damnation of a single person. What notion of “glorification” are you working with that is exalted and fulfilled in God's doing this?
It is possible that the eventual damnation of certain people fits into an ultimate plan of God’s that we do not see and cannot conceive of. More importantly, it is possible that God loves ALL sentient beings EQUALLY, but THIS is a “sacrificing a rook for the queen” type tactic. And guess what OTHER view has the whole “sacrificing a rook for the queen” idea. Hmm…
That’s ALL that is needed, Tom.
Moreover, this is what REALLY helps it (Meph is CHEESIN right now!  )…
Remember all the discussions that I’ve been doing about positing that God’s constant upholding of our existence is a demonstration of God’s unconditional love TO all beings IN their distinctiveness? It becomes extremely important! See, the problem before was this: How can we clearly articulate God UNCONDITIONALLY loving someone that God divinely directs in going to Hell? There was no real way to do this in my mind before. This was an issue even within the glorification principle, the only hole I couldn’t then fill.
BUT NOW!!!!!!!!!!
If it truly can be said that God’s constant “life support” to all sentient beings truly IS a demonstration of love TO all individuals IN their distinctiveness, then we can coherently say that God is ALWAYS being loving to all beings…even beings whom God is divine directing to damnation!
IT…FRIGGIN…WORKS!!!! This idea added a CRUCIAL element that made the glorification principle super tight.
Would someone really be able to say that there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that the damnation of one person could EVER be a “sacrificing the rook for a queen” thing? Would someone really be able to say that there is NO WAY that God’s continual upholding of our existence is IN NO WAY a demonstration of God’s unconditional love to EACH being IN their distinctiveness?
NO ON BOTH COUNTS! They’d be highly presumptuous to do so.
So, this allows for there to be a genuine middle ground. Both/and.
Loving this,
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/28/2003 4:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Why the Glorification Principle in the First Place?
I noticed that there seemed to be a LOT of times in the Bible where God said that he was UNILATERALLY doing something for HIS GLORY. For his NAME’S SAKE. Stuff like that. And that stuff wasn’t ALWAYS pretty. Sometimes people got HURT or USED. And, quite frankly, I rarely saw this dealt with adequately in openness literature. In fact, it seemed to me that the openness depiction of God largely COUNTERED some of this type of language. I mean, they would be basically saying stuff like
“Well, God isn’t some egocentric gloryhound, seeking after his glory all the time, at the expense of others.
when I’m looking at Scripture and saying
“The HELL God AIN’T! It seems like he’s seeking his glory ALLTHE TIME, and yes, sometimes at the expense of other people!!”
I had the firm conviction that this M.O. of God had to be dealt with. In this regard, I really believed that Calvinists like John Piper had the right intuition. God ain’t just some love slave of Creation. God seeks God’s GLORY too! And it doesn’t do the concept justice to COMBINE TO ASSIMILATION God seeking his glory and God being unconditionally loving to all Creation. It just doesn’t work.
But I also had the firm conviction that open view theists like Doc had the right intuition about God truly wanting genuine reciprocity and relative autonomy of his Creation for the purpose of love. There are TOO MANY Scriptures that shows God almost pining away after his people, asking them to CHOOSE life. THIS had to be retained too.
But alas, it seemed like both sides wanted their way or the highway. With respect to morally important choices before God (salvation included), either they were ALL predetermined or NONE of them were.
I said phooey to all that.
After extensive discussion with others on this board, in concert with reading, I came up with the basis for the GLORIFICATION PRINCIPLE. A principle which tried to reconcile God’s fairly obvious longing for God’s glory and centrality of all things…AND…God’s equally fairly obvious longing for the expansion of love and promotion of choice. After tweaking and talking, it was pretty much done. With the exception of one piece. But NOW that piece has been found.
Oh, HAYELL, yeah…it’s on!
The impetuous, incredibly brazen Alexander prepares to cut the Gordian Knot. Lateral thinking at it’s best.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/28/2003 6:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Sorry I haven’t chimed in earlier, but I’m (supposed to be) on vacation. Actually, I’ve just been enjoying myself writing this book on the Historical Jesus with Paul Eddy. Anyhoo, I’m here now. Diving in, head first….
Meph: YES, God can determine who gets saved and who doesn't, but God can ALSO allow people to choose ALONE. Why does it have to be ONE WAY or the OTHER, Doc? You know as well as I that the open view allows for BOTH. Just because YOU don't like it don't mean it ain't so.
Doc: See, here’s your chief mistake. MY TASTES ARE the critieria for all truth. Didn’t you know that? Seriously, your point depends on what you’re defining as "the Open View." If the "Open View" means merely the acknowledgment that some of the future is composed of possibilities, you’re right. It’s almost infinitely flexible. Heck, I (and I’ve now run into several others) for a brief period (while transitioning out of Calvinism) held that people were generally free, and the future to this extent open, but not in terms of salvation. (bizzare, I know)
TGB: I don’t at all see that libertarianism (which open theism is a version of) allows both to be true. The whole reason for believing that God "ever" allows people to choose ALONE….is the same reason for believing God "never" unconditionally determines a person’s fate.
Doc: Certainly if God can save anyone unilaterally – compatibilistically – then one has to let go of the "free will defense" for the problem of evil. And for many of us, this would be a tremendous loss. Indeed, as TGB points out, it is for many of us one of the chief selling points of the Open View.
Meph:. Doc has NO METAPHYSICAL BASIS (including creational factors) to say that God CANNOT use 1st type compatibilism to bring people into or let people stay out of salvation. He CANNOT deny that God can employ BOTH types of compatibilism in the open view. All he can now do is what YOU can do, Tom: Admit that you disagree with compatibilists about HOW JUSTICE WORKS…and keep the disagreement THERE!
Doc: God can do whatever he wants, true – meaning, God can create any kind of world he wants. But if God in fact created the kind of world I and most other Open Theists say he created, then he CAN’T metaphysically "save" or "damn" one group of people compatibilistically while leaving others to decide their own fate. Part of the METAPHYSICS of OT is the belief that *God wants all to be saved; * God does all God can do to get everyone saved * love must be chosen, and * salvation is a matter of love.
Meph: I truly believe it comes back to a view of WHAT IS FAIR and WHAT IS LOVING. Doc wouldn’t believe that it would be JUST, FAIR, or LOVING for God to compatibilistically allow even ONE PERSON to go to Hell.
Doc: "Compatibilistically allow" sounds like a contradiction in terms. You "allow" someone to freely do something. You compatibilistically determine them to "choose" something. And yes, I think it would be unloving and unjust for God to do this.
Meph: Doc acts like there could be absolutely NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON for God to do so. But I’ve been trying to tell him: that’s HIS issue, not the issue of the worldview!
Doc: Dude, it seems you’ve reduced the Open Worldview down to the sheer ascertain of a partly open future. But I suspect that for most Open Thiests, the "Open Worldview" is MORE a matter of a certain picture of God , of a certain picture of his relationship with us, and thus of a certain picture of what it means to be human. You’re proposed "compromise" cuts to the core of this – even though it allows for a future composed of possibilities.
TGB: I don’t think Doc believes God is "metaphysically" incapable of 1st type compatibilism, which is simply unconditionally determining the choice(s) of an agent. I’d be interested in hearing what he says. In my mind the whole disagreement with compatibilists is, as you say, over whether or not God hold agents morally accountable for such unconditionally predetermined actions. Where’s the news in this?
Doc: Absolutely. Because of the kind of world he created and the variables that necessarily condition what comes to pass, God can at times (and can’t at times) work compatibilistically. What I don’t think God can ever do is compatibilistically determine a person while leaving them morally responsible for what he determines them to do. So, if love – and salvation – are morally responsible issues, God can’t compatibilistically determine them.
Meph: "I believe that as long as a person has ANY FREEDOM WHATSOEVER that they are morally responsible for all actions that they actively do…EVEN IF said actions are being unconditionally directed by another force such that it is a CERTAINTY that they would not do otherwise."
Doc: If an agents action can be "unconditionally directed by another force" how is does the agent have any freedom whatsoever as it concerns that action? Let me put it this way, IF THE AGENT DIDN’T HAVE ANY FREEDOM, WHAT WOULD THIS LOOK LIKE – if not like that agent being "unconditionally directed by another force" toward that action?
Meph" Would you say this this statement is LOGICALLY INCOHERENT and/or MEANINGLESS (that it makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever)…or would you say that I am INCORRECT in what I’m saying?
Doc: With TGB, I don’t have a clue as to what such a statement is intending to communicate. I have nothing in my experience upon which to analogically ascribe any meaning to the words.
Meph: As you can tell, there are compromises to be made on both sides of this issue. The people that fit into the two categories above are NOT gonna like the some of my ideas. So, if you are one of these people…and you know that NOTHING will change that, just acknowledge that to yourselves
Doc: My good friend, I hate to disappoint you. But I don’t think you’re going to get many converts to your position for the simple reason that you are asking BOTH sides to surrender the CENTRAL TENET of their convictions to reach your proposed "compromise." Its like this Meph: If an Open Theist could bring themselves to granting that even ONE person could be predestined to go to hell, then they would in principle have no problem in granting that the majority of people are predestined to go to hell. And if a Calvinist could bring themselves to grant that even ONE person possesses libertarian freedom such that their future is open, then they would in principle have no problem granting that everybody possesses this sort of libertarian freedom. But for the Open Theist, granting the one damned predestine souls assails the core of their vision of God’s love, while for the Calvinist, granting the one free person assails the core of their vision of God’s sovereignty. You’re asking both sides to swallow a camel and strain at a gnat!
Meph: OF WHAT PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE IS THE CONSTANT PROBLEMS WITH SAYING THAT GOD DOES BOTH??
Doc: It’s of TOTAL practical importance – both sides would argue – for it centrally affects your picture of who God is, and who YOU are.
TGB: Unconditionality and conditionality don’t affect the definition, so why admit them but not moral culpability into your definition?
Doc: TGB nails this Meph. See, "compatibilism" IS the view that determinism and morally responsible freedom are COMPATIBLE. You want to take moral responsibility out of the equation and just worry about "the mechanics" of compatibilism. But the "mechanics" are all about the morality – which is why the IN SUCH A WAY clause is absolutely crucial to all Reformed Confessions.
Meph: I need to deal with this. It’s THIS type of rhetoric, my good Doctor, that keeps giving more HEAT than LIGHT. You do realize this, don’t you?? Retreating to emotionalized rhetoric like this does nothing positive for the discussion, Doc. Just being real with you.
Doc: Sorry my man. But I can’t communicate to you why your proposed "compromise" holds no appeal to me without telling you that I hear it as asking me to embrace a picture of God that is nightmarish. I don’t see it has ANY advantage over classical Calvinsim. You’re still left with the concept of a God who COULD save all but decides to ONLY save some. The fact that in your view God doesn’t determine ALL who will be damned to be so – only some of them – is an ounce relief to a trillion ton problem. But even more fundamentally, until my (and Paul Eddy’s – its more his work than mine) exegesis of Romans 9 can be shown to be faulty, and until the Augustinian/ Manichean exegesis can be shown to be compelling, I have absolutely no reason to feel the slightest pull toward a "compromise" (read – complete selling out) to the Augustinian perspective.
Meph: we can coherently say that God is ALWAYS being loving to all beings…even beings whom God is divine directing to damnation!
Doc: What does "love for John" look like – indeed, what does "God’s PERFECT love for John" look like if it includes God directing John to damnation? If God positively HATED John, how would his behavior toward John look different? I think the classical Calvinist are a bit more consistent when they acknowledge that God DOESN’T love everybody, but rather despises those whom he’s predestined for damnation. (While of course at the same time affirming that God in some sense wishes he could love them enough to save them).
Final Word to Meph: I understand your heart and appreciate your creativity in trying to arrive at a compromise. But I honestly think the "compromise" is asking both sides to sell their souls.
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/28/2003 7:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc said:
quote:
Dude, it seems you’ve reduced the Open Worldview down to the sheer ascertain of a partly open future. But I suspect that for most Open Thiests, the "Open Worldview" is MORE a matter of a certain picture of God , of a certain picture of his relationship with us, and thus of a certain picture of what it means to be human.
I would briefly like to point out that this goes against a lot of what you’ve said when dealing with people. Usually, you’d say something like…
“Why are people getting all bent out of shape over this. All I’m saying is that God created a partly open future. What’s the big deal?”
But now you’ve definitely stated that the main issue FOR MOST OPEN THEISTS is NOT just about foreknowledge OR an open future, like you’ve been saying. But CLEARLY about a particular view of God. Isn’t this what all the anti-openness people have been saying from the jump? This is what they accused openness people of being about from the start of this whole thing. Man…
But let’s move on…
****************************
Doc:
quote:
My good friend, I hate to disappoint you. But I don’t think you’re going to get many converts to your position for the simple reason that you are asking BOTH sides to surrender the CENTRAL TENET of their convictions to reach your proposed "compromise." Its like this Meph: If an Open Theist could bring themselves to granting that even ONE person could be predestined to go to hell, then they would in principle have no problem in granting that the majority of people are predestined to go to hell. And if a Calvinist could bring themselves to grant that even ONE person possesses libertarian freedom such that their future is open, then they would in principle have no problem granting that everybody possesses this sort of libertarian freedom.
Now, Tom, do you see why the inflexiblity exists? Why it’s a ALL-OR-NOTHING thing? It’s about PRINCIPLE. (And if you people notice how I usually do, that’s what I try to argue on base of.) Once you admit ONE, there’s no reason to admit MANY. And some people on both sides just won’t tolerate that because the whole schema comes crashing down. The one “maverick molecule” or the one “determined lost soul” spell the end of the two magic castles.
But darnit, there’s just no REASON for this. Is the glory of God REALLY that diminished because God allows some freedom? Is the unimaginable love of God REALLY so diminished because some people may be determined for damnation for reasons we can’t fathom? (damn near tearful…)
IS THE DIGNITY AND MAJESTY OF GOD REALLY THIS HARD TO KEEP INTACT? HELD ON SO FRAGILE A STRAND OF HAIR?? WHAT THE HELL AM I DOING IN THIS WHOLE THING???
******************************
Doc:
quote:
Final Word to Meph: I understand your heart and appreciate your creativity in trying to arrive at a compromise. But I honestly think the "compromise" is asking both sides to sell their souls.
Answer me, now, people. WHAT SOUL am I asking to be sold? Honestly, now. Both views (open view theism and Calvinism) are like photographs of people. They are fine if you don’t look too close and examine too long. Cause when you do all these blemishes and stuff starting popping out at you. Things you didn’t notice before.
I just don’t get it. We’ve dealt at length with open view theism and its providential issues. We should all know by now that it doesn’t get you THAT much mileage with the problem of evil. It just doesn’t. Same way with Calvinism. And there are so many Scriptures that support BOTH positions! What in the world is so hard about what I’m asking to us consider?
Seriously, are some of us just NOT going to serve God anymore if what I’m speculating to be true IS true? Yeah, YOU Calvinist. Yeah, YOU open theist. Are all of us going to stop loving Christ, loving our neighbor, and all that…BECAUSE God may be broader in scope with we originally thought? Is that really what all this is about?
Is all this REALLY a function of our idea of which God is most worthy of worship? Is God really any less God because he allows some libertarian freedom? Is Jesus really not worth a plug NICKEL just because God may determine some to damnation?? I… I just…
Come ON, y’all. This thing WORKS. It really does. It fills all the wholes. It...
Ah, screw it. Well, it works for me. Maybe it’ll help for some others.
Follow your own heart.
Down, but not out,
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/28/2003 7:46 AM (GMT -6) | | For the salvaging of the idea:
Doc:
quote:
Meph: we can coherently say that God is ALWAYS being loving to all beings…even beings whom God is divine directing to damnation!
Doc: What does "love for John" look like – indeed, what does "God’s PERFECT love for John" look like if it includes God directing John to damnation? If God positively HATED John, how would his behavior toward John look different? I think the classical Calvinist are a bit more consistent when they acknowledge that God DOESN’T love everybody, but rather despises those whom he’s predestined for damnation. (While of course at the same time affirming that God in some sense wishes he could love them enough to save them).
Perfect love looks like Jesus, the one who is the Lord of ALL THINGS , through whom ALL THINGS came to be, to whom ALL THINGS go…and by whom ALL THINGS are sustained.
Can I get a witness and a "HalleLUjah"?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/28/2003 7:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Ross:
quote:
Now I know that you said somewhere in this thread that you believe that God can show his love toward a person by merely holding that person in existence. But I've got to disagree with you there.
First of all, I appreciate you speaking up. Thanks. Ok, Ross. Explain to me WHY you disagree with this. Maybe there is something I’m missing.
My thinking is that EXISTENCE ITSELF is a gracious, loving gift from God that NO ONE deserves. But God sustains each and every millisecond of our existences. EVERYONE’S. Even Satan’s. That’s some HUGE amount of love and grace there. How can this not be considered God being LOVING to each of us in our distinctiveness? Help me with that.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/28/2003 11:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Seems to me (VERY STRONGLY) that talking in terms of musical analogies would be better for this topic than investegating it along the lines of philosophical categories.
Very often it is HOW a piece of music is played that matters, and not just the notes. So much of this talk seems bogged-down with the notes, and discussing how to make sure that this or that note does or does not come up. And it may not be the proper issue. What matters is HOW the notes are played. (Suffering for Christ is a good case in point--what a seeming paradox!)
John Lennon's poem springs to mind: "The blues is a chair" -- not one to stand and admire, but one to sit on."
SIT ON this material. Stop trying to "stand and admire" it!!!!!!!!!!!!
quote:
"The BLUES is a Chair.
Not a Design for a Chair,
Or a Better Chair.....
It is the first Chair.
It is a Chair for sitting on,
Not chairs for Looking at
Or Being Appreciated." - John Lennon
Its HOW it is played, and not just which page of the score is on top at the moment.
Feeeeeeeeeelll It! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/28/2003 1:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Good point Ross. And doesn't this get to the heart of the disagreement between Calvinists and Open Theists? Isn't the key issue that Open Theists believe that Love must be chosen else it is not Love? That God's will is that ALL people will choose to love Him? And that since some don't God's will CAN be thwarted for a particular individual?
It seems to me that Calvinist's want to hold to an absolute idea of God being sovereign. That God is sovereign at every possible metaphysical level. That even though everyone would agree that God's will CANNOT be thwarted at the highest level (He WILL get a bride - a set of people who will choose to love Him) that God's will CAN be thwarted at an individual or instance level. Some people will NOT choose to love Him and some events will NOT go the way God would have preferred.
What makes this discussion so difficult is that it is really hard to communicate this distinction between a "category" level and an "instance" level.
A Calvinist would say that if ANY instance went against God's will then BY DEFINITION God is not COMPLETELY sovereign in that category and therefore He is not sovereign at ALL in that category. Or, sovereignity of a category MEANS sovereignity of each and every particular instance. AND, there are no categories where this is NOT true.
Whereas an Open Theist would say that there IS such a category where sovereignity of the category MEANS NON-sovereignity of each and every instance. That to BE sovereign of each and every instance actually MEANS NON-sovereignity of the category.
Specifically, Open Theists say that Love is such a category AND that it is a category that it is God's will to be sovereign in.
Thus, Open Theists argue that IF God tried to be sovereign over each and every instance of a person loving Him THEN God, by definition, would NOT be sovereign over the category of Love.
God COULD NOT accomplish His will that some people choose to love Him IF He seeks to be sovereign over each and every person choosing to love Him.
I think the bottom line to this is that Calvinists MUST reject the idea that Love must be chosen because this implies that there exists a category where for God to be sovereign over each and every instance MEANS that God CANNOT be sovereign over the entire category and THIS contradicts their presupposition that sovereignity MEANS sovereignity over the category AND each and every instance.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 8/28/2003 2:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Icon,
How bout' we split the difference, and just say 'everything' is filtered or must pass through, not by-pass the will of God, concerning the sovereignty quiz; would that make everyone happy?
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/28/2003 2:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Ross:
quote:
God creating and sustaining a creature's existence IS a loving action. You're right on the ball there, and I am in total agreement with you that God loves all beings, even Satan. But I would say that God would NOT be loving to create and sustain a sentient being for the PURPOSE of damnation in order to show his glory. Damnation is seperation from God, so it is antithetical to God's glory for someone to be damned- to be seperated from his love. Seperation from God's love is chosen.
I'm wondering.... how do you reconcile even one person being determined to damnation --to eternal seperation from all that is lovely and good-- wih the idea that God unconditionally loves that person? I need LOTS of help with that.
Here goes. If one is willing to say that God’s sustanance of all sentient beings is a demonstration of God’s UNCONDITIONAL LOVE to all beings in their distinctiveness, then this means that each being that has existence presently is BEING LOVED BY GOD unconditionally. To deny this, you would have to deny that main premise and say that God’s sustance of all beings is UNQUALIFIABLY NOT a demonstration of God’s unconditional love.
Now, what you (or anyone else) could try to argue is this…
Well, if one believes in eternal conscious punishment, doesn’t that cause a problem, especially with respect to those who would be predestined for it? How would the unconditional loving act of God’s sustanance really be “loving” then? When does the sustanance of one’s existence become more of a BURDEN than a BLESSING?
This would be like asking the question of whether or not keeping a brain-dead loved one on life-support really is LESS loving than just letting them go. And this is a valid question. It’s not like God’s continual sustanance of all sentient beings is NOT loving. But, is there a point, given hell, that it would be MORE loving to allow them to pass out of existence…Or even compatibilistically turn them to God as well after a stint in hell? If this is what you are saying, then you could either make an argument for eventual annihilationism or eventual universalism. The glorification principle ALLOWS metaphysically for either. I think most people here would prefer ANNIHILATIONISM. But let it be stated that if one really saw fit, they could stay with eternal conscious punishment.
So, recapping. The idea of God loving people that God would unconditional assign to hell is NOT incoherent if we keep in mind that God’s continual sustenance IS a demonstration of God’s unconditional love to us.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/28/2003 2:56 PM (GMT -6) | | This is part of what I’m trying to say, y’all.
Isn’t it in THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY that God, the all-wise, all-loving God has a glorious divine plan that gives Creation parameters, such that it is necessary that certain people WILL be in hell? A real “sacrificing the rook to save the queen” type deal that only GOD understands? Along with desiring a Creation where freely chosen love exists and where a freely choosing Bride will emerge, could it not at ALL be the case that God desired some OTHER things in Creation, some factors that we just DO NOT and CANNOT know about that involves God’s plan, such that some compatibilism regarding salvation takes place?
Is it not even POSSIBLE? I think that it is. I think it answers to Scriptures from BOTH perspectives, fills in gaps, and does it without playing both sides against the middle.
Now what I keep hearing is this:
If you cannot explain to us or give us SOME TYPE of reason why God would do this, then why should we believe that God would?
In other words, I’m feel like I’m being asked to give a MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE possible DIVINE REASON how the possibility I am suggesting could take place. You may as well say…
“Hey, Meph. Take ALL the mystery away and give us a credible REASON that WE feel is reasonable for why God would do this.
We ain’t gonna accept this ‘God knows and that’s enough’ stuff. If WE don’t think it’s a good reason, then it’s not a good reason. ”
Do we realize exactly what this is asking?
Anyways, it seems that most people around here have NO PROBLEM coming up with reasons why God would allow libertarian freedom. But because there’s not an acceptable reason (I say this because reasons CAN be given, but they are often not accepted on moral grounds or whatever) for compatibilistic appointment to final states, then it MUST be a LOGICAL impossibility…or their must be no CONCEIVABLE reason. What the…??? I just don’t think so.
I leave you with this question. And this will do it for me….
IF it’s true that God does compatibilistically determine the final states of SOME people, does this FUNDAMENTALLY negate the INCOMPREHENSIBLE love of God demonstrated not only in CREATION, and SUSTAINING GRACE for all beings, but also in the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ? I don’t know about you, but just the fact that God did all that for ONE sinner is mind blowing to me. Forget dying for all. Just God's doing all that for ONE being is UNIMAGINABLE! Are we REALLY going to say that everything that I have just mentioned is completely NOTHING…MEANINGLESS…just because God may compatibilistically determine some people to hell??
Answer this question for me, peeps. Be completely honest too!
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/28/2003 3:34 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
It seems to me that Calvinist's want to hold to an absolute idea of God being sovereign. That God is sovereign at every possible metaphysical level. That even though everyone would agree that God's will CANNOT be thwarted at the highest level (He WILL get a bride - a set of people who will choose to love Him) that God's will CAN be thwarted at an individual or instance level. Some people will NOT choose to love Him and some events will NOT go the way God would have preferred.
What makes this discussion so difficult is that it is really hard to communicate this distinction between a "category" level and an "instance" level.
A Calvinist would say that if ANY instance went against God's will then BY DEFINITION God is not COMPLETELY sovereign in that category and therefore He is not sovereign at ALL in that category. Or, sovereignity of a category MEANS sovereignity of each and every particular instance. AND, there are no categories where this is NOT true.
Calvin saw God WOOOOOOO-ing mankind! Election is IN CHRIST. God gives us over to our passions if we reject Him. But our chosenness is not the result of manipulation. It is a result of the theatre of God's wooing. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/28/2003 5:06 PM (GMT -6) | | I was looking through past notes and I was wondering what was wrong. This is what I saw something. This is an attempt to see HOW CLOSE I can come to what open view theists CAN accept...as opposed to what I have now.
Open view theists do not want to say that God exhibits continuous, carefully detailed, divine direction such that God is ultimately behind ANY PARTICULAR evil act. The salvation/damnation thing is a PART of this larger problem!
There were subset reasons for this Biggie:
1) This would render moral responsibility in those cases highly problematic. If sin is defined as “going against God’s will” with the implicit sense of moral responsibility for that, how would someone who does evil while under compatibilistic divine direction be “SINNING” against God? The idea of “sin” loses meaning in those situations.
2) This would seem to make God the “author” of things which God supposedly hates. How God could predestine not just the CONTEXT for certain evils to emerge, but the PARTICULAR INSTANTIATION of evil…while supposedly being AGAINST evil in all forms? If God doesn’t LIKE people choosing against God, and ultimately doesn’t WANT that to happen at any time, then why would God ORDAIN some people not to choose God. This seems contradictory.
Good, hard questions. These, I felt, need to be answered before things can happen. Twisted and turned them in my head. And it came to me.
What if I amend the stuff in the following way:
A) God ONLY exhibits continuous, carefully detailed, divine direction such that God is ultimately behind a PARTICULAR act of pain, suffering and loss (morally initiated or otherwise)…when it is the case that some form of REDEMPTION, either for the persons involved or others, is ensured to emerge from it. Moreover, any sentient beings who are under this carefully detailed, divine direction while doing such things are NOT morally responsible for those actions, but will suffer natural reprecussions for the actions taken, whatever they may be.
This seemed to work out for the two problems above. Except for the damnation idea. In what way could the damnation of a person be REDEMPTIVE for that person or anyone else? Had a hard time with that one. But what about about Romans 9? The hardening and what not? I thought some more. And came up with this…
B) Let it be stated that God does NOT ordain sentient beings to their final states unconditionally. But, FOR THE SAKE OF SOME TYPE OF REDEMPTIVE ACTIVITY as described earlier, God CAN ordain that a being will not choose God FOR A SPECIFIC TIME and PURPOSE.
I think this works out. It shows how God truly CAN harden people and actually withhold salvation from people for a time for his own purposes…perhaps even to endure some type of tremendous pain, suffering, or loss…WITHOUT necessarily saying this is an end state.
End result? ALL times of compatibilistic action with beings that involve some type of pain, suffering, or loss ALL deal with some form of redemption (either for the persons involved or others) from which God gets glory. NO persons are compatibilistically consigned to hell, but can be prevented for choosing God for a specific time and purpose of God's design.
Thoughts? Problems?
| | Back to Top | | |
| 127 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:49 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 |
|
|