 |
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/26/2003 4:37 AM (GMT -6) |   | On Romans 9
Now this is an EXCELLENT starting place to show my issues with both sides of this debate...
Rom. 9:1
I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5 to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
Rom. 9:6
It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, 7 and not all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants; but “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants. 9 For this is what the promise said, “About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 Nor is that all; something similar happened to Rebecca when she had conceived children by one husband, our ancestor Isaac. 11 Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue, 12 not by works but by his call) she was told, “The elder shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written,
“I have loved Jacob,
but I have hated Esau.”
Rom. 9:14
What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. 17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.
Rom. 9:19
You will say to me then, “Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; 23 and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they shall be called children of the living God.”
Rom. 9:27
And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved; 28 for the Lord will execute his sentence on the earth quickly and decisively.” 29 And as Isaiah predicted,
“If the Lord of hosts had not left survivors to us,
we would have fared like Sodom
and been made like Gomorrah.”
Rom. 9:30
What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31 but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32 Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written,
“See, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
Doc and some other open view theists want to say that this passage basically has NO1st type (God originated) compatibilistic ideas at all. That the Scriptures are basically talking about God doing what he wants to do and not having to be answerable to human beings about his decisions. That God can choose whomever he wishes and harden whomever he wishes to harden…meaning those who have SELF-DETERMINED their conditions to a point. Again, NO 1st type compatibilism.
Others want to say that this massage definitively has 1st type compatibilistic overtones, such that, combined with the idea of “bondage of the will”, it naturally means that God can choose whoever he wishes for SALVATION. In other words, God can choose which persons will be captured lovingly by grace and who will not. ALL people are chosen this way. ALL 1st type compatibilism.
I submit to you that BOTH of these can be the case!
Think about this. If God TRULY DOES have the authority that BOTH PEOPLE are claiming here, if God truly is the potter that has sovereign authority of the clay, then doesn’t God have both the right to compatibilistically work some people into salvation…AND the right to lovingly relax his careful divine direction enough to allow more autonomy to some beings for decision??? How about YES!  In BOTH cases, it can be readily admitted that without the grace of God and the Spirit’s renewal, NO ONE would be saved. Because NO ONE seeks after God like that. We CANNOT because of sin. (No one here’s PELAGIAN, right?) So, the rejuvenating work of the Spirit is a non-negotiable on both sides….
HOWEVER…
There is nothing about this Scripture that implies that God COULDN’T, by His Spirit, RENEW the spirit, enabling the person to ACTIVELY CHOOSE whether or not to bear fruit for God…and then lovingly relaxing his carefully detailed divine direction to the point of expanding a being’s autonomy and letting them choose whether or NOT to bear fruit to God! This is possible given the text. Look at it…
Rom. 9:14
What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. 17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.
Rom. 9:19
You will say to me then, “Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; 23 and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
Look at the main argument. All this is saying is that WITHOUT DIVINE ENABLEMENT, we are stuck. And God has the RIGHT to deny divine enablement to whomever He chooses. If God CHOOSES to leave people in their sinful state for his glorious purposes, then he can do so. But look closely. This says absolutely NOTHING about HOW this all works out. It’s talking about God’s RIGHT as God and the NECESSITY of divine enablement.
Can anyone here tell from this Scripture whether or not…
God ALWAYS divinely enables and, in continuous, carefully detailed divine direction, lovingly leads them to choose God.
OR…
God ALWAYS divinely enables a person, liberating their bondage of will, and lovingly relaxes his carefully detailed divine direction…and let’s them decide ALONE whether or not to choose God.
I…just…don’t…think…so…
If God is God, then he has the sovereign right to do EITHER of these things AS HE SEES FIT…WHEN he sees fit. The open view theists can now shut up! The compatibilists can now shut up! Who the HECK are WE to tell God when He can and cannot divinely lead people into salvation or remove the shackles of will bondage and let people choose for themselves? We are NOBODY. There is rank arrogance on BOTH SIDES to exclaim that it need be only one way all the time, either compatibilism or not compatibilism.
In conclusion, this passage suits BOTH OPTIONS very well, ESPECIALLY if the main point of the whole thing that BOTH SIDES acknowledge is admitted: God is God and he has the authority to do what God chooses, no matter HOW we percieve things or don’t like things.
Nuff said…for now!
Brazenly cutting the friggin Gordian Knot,
"Think outside the box"
--Who Knows Who Said This? It's Good.
"Free your mind."
--Morpheus to Neo in "The Matrix" | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/26/2003 5:07 AM (GMT -6) | | To lead up to an answer to your question, Meph, I'd like to touch on its collateral issue:
(quoting Keselopoulos) "God and the world are radically distinguished. . .At the same time, however, they are indissolubly connected. God is 'the only maker and Creator of these things.' ... the act of creation is not confined to the emergence of creation from nothingness, but is extended into a binding link which holds together and joins all existent things and the whole of creation with God."
So the collateral issue is the fact that God both creates the cosmos as a thing in itself and also is "nearer" to it than it is itself. The Incarnation presents a third case in that the Creator who is utterly different from us ALSO created us in His image, and joined us to him self in Christ Jesus. So with those two in mind I'll try ans answer your question.
quote:
Can anyone here tell from this Scripture whether or not…
God ALWAYS divinely enables and, in continuous, carefully detailed divine direction, lovingly leads them to choose God.
OR…
God ALWAYS divinely enables a person, liberating their bondage of will, and lovingly relaxes his carefully detailed divine direction…and let’s them decide ALONE whether or not to choose God.
I'm not answering that part about Scritpure references. But my answer is that God is THAT NEAR and also the Creator. Both jobs fit together with respect to us.
"Time is the freedom to love."
(from Ware's "The Inner Kingdom")
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/26/2003 5:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Two people walk up to Meph after reading some of his stuff…
Person1: But Meph, are you saying that God could actually so limit our freedom, via God’s divine direction, that we “freely” choose for or against God based solely on GOD’S whim?
Meph: Yep.
Person 1: Well, I can’t serve that type of a God. That’s not true freedom! That God is far too controlling and obviously psychologically immature. A truly glorious God would…
Meph: (interrupting) Fine, fine. Go be a Buddhist or something. Stop whining. If you can’t deal with it, don’t. Just don’t be such a baby about it.
Person 2: But Meph, are you saying that God could actually so expand our freedom, lovingly of course, that we could choose against him NOT based solely on God’s whim?
Meph: Yep.
Person 2: Well, what kind of God is THAT? Surely not one who cares, protects, and guards His children with love! That type of God is a hand-wringing, loosely goosey God. A truly glorious God would…
Meph: (interrupting) LOOK, man. Cool. Fine. Whatever. Find another God. Stop trippin’. Go away.
Person 1: You know, you’re pretty darn brazen!
Person 2: (nodding) Definitely so…
Meph: Oh, really? Sorry. Maybe I’m just tired of this blithe “Which God is more glorious” NONSENSE that’s been going on so long. Maybe I’m just disgusted going to ETS conferences and seeing kangaroo courts. Maybe I’m just tired of seeing evangelicals spend to much time on THIS stuff that they leave the weightier matters, like LOVE, JUSTICE, and MERCY, in the dust. All because you two don’t want to compromise a little bit. Whatever. Excuse me if you don’t like my tone, esteemed lady and gentleman, but I couldn't give a damn. People are hurt, hungry, and in pain. And you two act like some 5 year olds fighting over a toy! It’s frustrating. It’s OLD. And it’s time for ALL of us to repent. Including me for harboring such bitterness for this whole silly enterprise! I’m out…
Person 1: Well, I never!
Meph: Yeah, I bet you never. Heh. See you two in the funny papers. Peace.
Meph walks away…
"Ya know, you might wanna calm down a bit on the board."
--Good advice not taken...yet.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/26/2003 5:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Have funny you guys . The merry go round has started... | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 8/26/2003 5:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Hmmmmm...
As I reflect back on my conversion experience, my 'freedom' never crossed my mind. I can't help but believe that my 'freedom' was so narrow that I made the only choice I could, for God . He was SO in my face that every other possibility had been eliminated. This was not a reasoned, intellectual decision , but a meeting with the God of the universe that I didn't seek out.
peace, don | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/26/2003 5:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Don:
quote:
As I reflect back on my conversion experience, my 'freedom' never crossed my mind. I can't help but believe that my 'freedom' was so narrow that I made the only choice I could, for God . He was SO in my face that every other possibility had been eliminated. This was not a reasoned, intellectual decision , but a meeting with the God of the universe that I didn't seek out.
Mine was like that too. Kind of a Paul on Damascus Road/Blaise Pascalian “fire” experience…that demonstrated to me the reality of God. Quite frankly, if it hadn’t been like that, I’d probably not be a Christian theist right now. Definitely not a preacher or minister of any type. Seriously. However, there are others who’d deliberated over LONG periods of time…with much discussion to come to God. Where there are definite “leaps of faith” made by choice. One that easily comes to mind is Doc’s father, Edward Boyd.
Some people perceive their freedom to be quite curtailed. Others don’t. There’s allowance for both.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/26/2003 6:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: Doc and some other open view theists want to say that this passage basically has NO 1st type (God originated) compatibilistic ideas at all.
Tom: Tell me again what "1st type God-originated compatibilism" is, 'cause I'm not following ya. And what is the 2nd type? JUst so I'm following ya.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/26/2003 6:13 AM (GMT -6) | | 1st type compatibilism:
When God lovingly exerts God's carefully detailed divine direction to DIRECT agent solidification in a certain direction.
2nd type compatibilism:
When God lovingly exerts God's carefully detailed divine direction to EMPLOY an agent’s OWN self-solidification to God’s own ends.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/26/2003 7:34 AM (GMT -6) | | | Hmmmm…POW. Be clearer, please. Spell it out sloooowly, so I can respond accurately. Thanks. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/26/2003 7:38 AM (GMT -6) | | POW quotes someone…
quote:
(quoting Keselopoulos)
"God and the world are radically distinguished. . .At the same time, however, they are indissolubly connected. God is 'the only maker and Creator of these things.' ... the act of creation is not confined to the emergence of creation from nothingness, but is extended into a binding link which holds together and joins all existent things and the whole of creation with God."
So the collateral issue is the fact that God both creates the cosmos as a thing in itself and also is "nearer" to it than it is itself. The Incarnation presents a third case in that the Creator who is utterly different from us ALSO created us in His image, and joined us to him self in Christ Jesus. So with those two in mind I'll try to answer your question.
On another thread, Meph said:
quote:
[Note: Important to note that “save existence” part. If we are to truly say that God upholds ALL CREATION by the countenance of God’s word and power, than that means that God is operating with us all confluently on the level of existence!!]
and..
quote:
About the “save existence” part. I realize that not representative of most open view theists. I do think that it’s extremely important to recognize though. Without dealing specifically with the tiers upon which God/world confluence operates, we’ll end up on some really sharp rocks later. Any position that ends up saying that created autonomy from God lies on ALL levels is just asking for trouble, theologically.
Are we CLOSE to saying the same things here? Heh…
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/26/2003 10:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Are we CLOSE to saying the same things here? Heh…
Yes. I think so. If those verses are read THROUGH the understanding of "the act of creation is not confined to the emergence of creation from nothingness, but is extended into a binding link which holds together and joins all existent things and the whole of creation with God" then things come out right. But if everything is presumed to be independent of everything else, then (in history) people have made various left-field conclusions. Specifically, matters of free-will can only be understood from WITHIN (viewed "through") the facts of what human nature is. Just as those not appreiciating the God-centeredness of humanity at Creation (our design) find the incarnation to be a troublesome combilation (unnatural in their view), so also must someone who thinks mankind can get along either with or without God fill find matters of "free will" to be restrictive.
Sometimes in grade school we wrestled with whether a red-orange crayon or an orange-red crayon was closer to red (which is noun and which is adjective). But some other matters, like this one, is just about noticing that the important part is that it is a CRAYON.
:)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/26/2003 10:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph: 1st type compatibilism: When God lovingly exerts God's carefully detailed divine direction to DIRECT agent solidification in a certain direction.
Tom: I'm following ya on type 2. But this type 1 I'm trying to understand. God "directs agent solidification"? Hmm. Can you give me an example? And also, are God's choice to so direct and the acts that issue from the agent in such cases unconditionally determined by God? Are agents in 1st type compatibilism morally responsible for how their character solidifies and for the acts that God decrees should flow from them?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/26/2003 11:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: I'm trying to understand. God "directs agent solidification"? Hmm. Can you give me an example?
Meph: Sure. Let’s say that God wants a person to grow up to be fluent in Spanish for some reason. God can so work in a person’s life by way of carefully detailed divine direction that this person WILL be fluent in Spanish. This involves many different details, but you get the point.
Tom: OK, I follow ya. But when I think of "solidification" I think of "character" solidification as in moral character. I wouldn't call this sort of thing that, though I agree it is an example of God working compatibilistically.
Tom: Are agents in 1st type compatibilism morally responsible for how their character solidifies and for the acts that God decrees should flow from them?
Mephi: ...here’s the thing. This difference of opinion has nothing to do with whether or not the open view allows for both types of compatibilism. It does. Plain as day.
Tom: But unconditionally and divinely determined human actions for which we are held morally responsible IS a kind of compatibilism, while unconditionally and divinely determined human actions for which we are not held morally responsible is another kind of compatibilism, while conditionally and divinely determined human actions for which we are held morally responsible is yet another type of compatibilism.
So I'm not sure we're really "agreeing" with our compatibilist friends if we dismiss the question of moral responsibility as you do in order to arrive at some common ground, for we either are or are not morally responsible for our actions. I think for determinists, moral responsibility is part of the "type" of compatibilism they affirm, and they are more likely (my guess is, but Polycarp will have to speak for himself) to withhold any agreement with you on common ground until you render a verdict on the question of moral responsibility.
Sure, open theists believe God can unconditionally decree that a person do or become x and that the person WANT to do or become x as well (so there's no coersion). I personally don't find this a very substantial point of agreement worth building much on. In fact, what can be erected on this point apart from adressing the question of moral accountability?
I guess my point is that since there simply is no such thing as God unconditionally determining that I become x without either holding me morally responsible or not holding me responsible for becoming x, there's nothing of substance to agree or disagree on in ignoring the question of responsibility. If you say I'm not responsible for become x in such circumstances, the determinist is not likely to say, "Well, hey at least we agree on the type of compatibilism being exercised by God."
The question is: Can God unconditionally determine my actions and justly hold me responsible for those actions? and not simply, Can God unconditionally determine my actions? for there is no divinely predetermined action of ours for which God does not either hold us accountable or not hold us accountable.
But I'm all ears if you see some common ground here, and I wanna learn.
Peace,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/26/2003 12:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Well, you've "out-brazened" yourself oh brazen one.
Don't have much time, but just a few thoughts.
a) So far as I can see, Meph's "whatever" solution to Romans 9 will be appealing to someone, perhaps, if a) they are as tired of the debate as he is and/or b) if they are at all inclined toward the Augustinian/Manichean deterministic reading of Romans 9. Since neither applies to me, I find nothing compelling about it.
b) How far are you willing to go with the "God has a right" thing? Of course, God has no higher "law" he has to appeal to, so in that since he has the "right" to be as monstrous as anyone's tortured imagination might fantasize... even creating people for the soul purpose of unending unreleting nightmarish pain on them. But God himself has entered into a covenant with us, spelled out in Scripture, and covenants curtail rights. He has told us, among other things, that he isn't willing that any should perish, wants all to come to repentance, takes no delight in the destruction of the wicked, he died for all people, etc.... He has the "right" to be lying, of course, but if he's speaking the truth, then he has no right -- by his own word -- just to pick and choose who he loves enough to ensure salvation, who he loves only enough to open up the possibility of salvation, who he doesn't give a rip about and ensures their damnation, etc...
c) The question of Romans 9 is one of exegesis, and must be thought through exegetically. I don't see any exegetical advantages of the "whatever" interpretation over the Arminian interpretation -- or the Manichean interpretation for that matter.
Gotta Run.
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 8/26/2003 2:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
quote:
I guess my point is that since there simply is no such thing as God unconditionally determining that I become x without either holding me morally responsible or not holding me responsible for becoming x, there's nothing of substance to agree or disagree on in ignoring the question of responsibility. If you say I'm not responsible for become x in such circumstances, the determinist is not likely to say, "Well, hey at least we agree on the type of compatibilism being exercised by God."
The question is: Can God unconditionally determine my actions and justly hold me responsible for those actions? and not simply, Can God unconditionally determine my actions? for there is no divinely predetermined action of ours for which God does not either hold us accountable or not hold us accountable.
What I hear you saying, Tom, is that understanding of moral culpability is ESSENTIAL to a definition of compatibilism. I'm not seeing that. I just wanted to make sure, first, that we ARE on common ground as far as what we are saying when we are talking about compatibilism. And it seems that we are.
See, the issue is NOT whether or not freedom exists in compatibilism. We see that now. The issue is whether or not a person believes that said freedom is SIGNIFICANT enough to warrant moral culpability. My quote again...
quote:
This is where the divide is going to happen. Compatibilists will want to say YES. Open theists will want to say NO. Open theists will say that there is not SUFFICIENT freedom to say this, while compatibilists will say that ANY AMOUNT of freedom, no matter how constrained, is enough.
I'm not trying to make a faux common ground here. I'm just trying to make sure that the separation lies where it NEEDS to. From what Polycarp was saying, open view theists had not truly, from his perspective, described compatibilism accurately. In order to dialogue with this view, we needed to GET there. Now, I think we ARE there.
My gut impression is that some people are gonna be like "God would not be just if he held someone accountable for something they didn't have the ability to stop doing" while other people will say "God is just IN holding someone accountable for something they didn't have the ability to stop doing" However you come down on that is you. But at least we are NOT talking past each other as far as what compatibilism IS anymore. 
************************************
Doc,
I think that you've missed the point. My thing is not a "whatever" solution. It is an application of the problems that I've been discussing about with open view theism for the past year or so. Stuff that deals with the glorification principle. All I'm saying is that the Romans 9 passage allows us to say what BOTH SIDES are saying...at the same time. 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.
"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 8/26/2003 11:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: What I hear you saying, Tom, is that understanding of moral culpability is ESSENTIAL to a definition of compatibilism.
Tom: Not exactly. A definition of the mechanics of a “murder” can be got at without talk of moral responsibility. Compare the person who premeditatedly and with understanding takes the life of another with the person who commits the same physical act while drugged, or with a mentally handicapped person who takes the life of another person not understanding what he’s doing. In terms of physical output, sheer “mechanics”, the same thing is happening in both cases though we rightly ascribe moral accountability to one and not to the other. So I don’t want to say moral culpability is “essential” to a definition of the “mechanics” (which is what you seem to be talking about) of compatibilism.
But if moral culpability is not essential to a definition of compatibilism, neither is unconditionality and conditionality which you are treating as essential to your definition. You define two types of compatibilism, Type 1 (God-originated, or “unconditional”) compatibilism, and Type 2 (God-employed, or “conditional”) compatibilism. But if moral culpability is not essential to the definition of compatibilism, surely neither unconditionality nor conditionality are either, for the “mechanics” of compatibilism (that is, how it is God goes about insuring that an agent willingly chooses what God wants her to willingly choose) is presummably the same in both cases. Unconditionality and conditionality don’t affect the definition, so why admit them but not moral culpability into your definition?
Mephi: See, the issue is NOT whether or not freedom exists in compatibilism. We see that now. The issue is whether or not a person believes that said freedom is SIGNIFICANT enough to warrant moral culpability.
Tom: Which is why the question of moral responsibility cannot be set aside.
Mephi: My gut impression is that some people are gonna be like "God would not be just if he held someone accountable for something they didn't have the ability to stop doing" while other people will say "God is just IN holding someone accountable for something they didn't have the ability to stop doing"
Tom: It all depends on whether the person was responsible in a libertarian sense for getting herself into a situation where she is not able to do other than she does or whether God unconditionally decreed that she willingly choose her course in life.
Mephi: 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…?
Tom: 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 (which is just as much a misunderstanding of libertarianism as is “coercion” a misconstrual of compatibilism, but never mind that) is the same reason for believing God “never” unconditionally determines a person’s fate. What reason do you have for believing God ever unconditionally determines who gets saved and who doesn’t?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 8/27/2003 1:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear Dwayne Polk,
Is the 'Will of Man' stronger, over, or exalted above the will of God
Or is,
The 'Will of GOD' always before the will of man?
Such as,
Psa 86:15 But thou, O Lord, [art] a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth.
Psa 145:8 The LORD [is] gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy.
Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
That is to say, I agree with your both attempt at peacemaking . . .
Imagination projects unreal images out of the mind and seeks to attach reality to them. Faith creates nothing; it simply reckons upon that which is already there. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/27/2003 3:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: See, the issue is NOT whether or not freedom exists in compatibilism. We see that now. The issue is whether or not a person believes that said freedom is SIGNIFICANT enough to warrant moral culpability.
Tom: I’m hearing you say libertarian freedom and compatibilistic freedom are the same thing, the same kind of freedom, and that the debate is rather over whether or not such freedom is present in sufficient “significance” to warrant moral culpability?
First, am I understanding you rightly to be saying self-determining (contra-causal) free will is essentially the same thing, the same free will, affirmed by theological compatibilists?
Secondly, what does “significant enough” mean? I’m hearing you say “We both affirm the same kind of freedom, just in differing significance (amounts).” Am I wrong?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/27/2003 4:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
quote:
But if moral culpability is not essential to a definition of compatibilism, neither is unconditionality and conditionality which you are treating as essential to your definition. You define two types of compatibilism, Type 1 (God-originated, or “unconditional”) compatibilism, and Type 2 (God-employed, or “conditional”) compatibilism. But if moral culpability is not essential to the definition of compatibilism, surely neither unconditionality nor conditionality are either, for the “mechanics” of compatibilism (that is, how it is God goes about insuring that an agent willingly chooses what God wants her to willingly choose) is presummably the same in both cases. Unconditionality and conditionality don’t affect the definition, so why admit them but not moral culpability into your definition?
They are essential because they are do distinct types HOW THE MECHANICS WORK. There are different “mechanics” going on in each type that are extremely important to note. That’s why.
**************************
Tom:
quote:
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 (which is just as much a misunderstanding of libertarianism as is “coercion” a misconstrual of compatibilism, but never mind that) is the same reason for believing God “never” unconditionally determines a person’s fate. What reason do you have for believing God ever unconditionally determines who gets saved and who doesn’t?
Miscontrual? How so? Be specific with that please. But moving on..
The point is as follows: Open view theism has no METAPHYSICAL GROUNDS upon which it can say that libertarianism is an ALL or NOTHING idea. Especially now that we’ve ascertained that compatibilism has to do with freedom’s CONSTRAINT, not REMOVAL. I’ve discussed this before when I talked about Neville’s ideas.
As far as my reason for thinking that God ever unconditionally determines who gets saved, I do think that Romans 9, along with other things, CAN be taken that way. My point though is it doesn’t have to be that way FOR EVERYONE.
Unless you want to make that point that God SHOULDN’T be able to do it for even ONE person, then what’s the problem?
*******************************
Tom:
quote:
I’m hearing you say libertarian freedom and compatibilistic freedom are the same thing, the same kind of freedom, and that the debate is rather over whether or not such freedom is present in sufficient “significance” to warrant moral culpability?
YES. Look back at my dialogue with Polycarp. The issue is NOT whether or not freedom exists. The issue is HOW MUCH CONSTRAINT does God EXERT upon the freedom at a given time in a given situation. The constraint can be to such amount that the “wiggle room” for indeterminism is NEGLIBLE AT BEST…enabling compatibilism.
Now, what compatibilists would probably want to say is that THIS amount of freedom NO MATTER HOW SMALL is sufficient for saying that a being is morally culpable during 1st type compatibilistic action. Libertarian people will say heck no: Unless the freedom of the person was expanded sufficiently such that it was in their PRIMARY ABILITY OF VOLITION to either do it or not do it, they are not responsible.
See?
********************************
Tom:
quote:
First, am I understanding you rightly to be saying self-determining (contra-causal) free will is essentially the same thing, the same free will, affirmed by theological compatibilists?
YES. I see this QUITE clearly now. The loci of freedom is INDEED the same. This is JUST LIKE what Neville’s ideas are about, from what I understand!
**********************************
Tom:
quote:
Secondly, what does “significant enough” mean? I’m hearing you say “We both affirm the same kind of freedom, just in differing significance (amounts).”
YES, that’s what I’m saying.
"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 8/27/2003 4:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc:
quote:
b) How far are you willing to go with the "God has a right" thing? Of course, God has no higher "law" he has to appeal to, so in that since he has the "right" to be as monstrous as anyone's tortured imagination might fantasize... even creating people for the soul purpose of unending unreleting nightmarish pain on them. But God himself has entered into a covenant with us, spelled out in Scripture, and covenants curtail rights. He has told us, among other things, that he isn't willing that any should perish, wants all to come to repentance, takes no delight in the destruction of the wicked, he died for all people, etc.... He has the "right" to be lying, of course, but if he's speaking the truth, then he has no right -- by his own word -- just to pick and choose who he loves enough to ensure salvation, who he loves only enough to open up the possibility of salvation, who he doesn't give a rip about and ensures their damnation, etc...
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. You KNOW I know this view very thoroughly. And I know that all the stuff that you mention here has a framework of being understood such that 1st type compatibilism is possible. How? Because your view is a TYPE of “greater good” argument. And that argument can be contoured by the “glorification principle” such that 1st type compatibilism dealing with salvation is NOT out of the picture. Did you not remember this??
Uh, oh. I see we’re gonna have a LOT of fun now.
Your brazen, but faithful understudy,
"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 8/27/2003 6:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: Miscontrual? How so? Be specific with that please.
Tom: I thought this was a miscontrual because no libertarian choice is made in absolute isolation from all influences and limits, which is how I took your capped “alone.” When we choose to say yes to God, we are not alone. We couldn’t make the choice without God’s aid. Of course, we may say no in spite of that aid, but we are still not alone in saying yes.
Mephi: …we’ve ascertained that compatibilism has to do with freedom’s CONSTRAINT, not REMOVAL.
Tom: I remember the example of the five lane boulevard narrowing to one lane, thus “constraining” the choice of which lane to drive on. Nice. But “constraining” or “limiting” the options is not enough to account for how it is God is able to guarantee that what he decrees comes to pass, for we may decide not to go driving all. Influence is not always a matter of constraining us by limiting the options we have. It is also causal if God is to guarantee that we will what he decrees.
Mephi: 1st type compatibilism dealing with salvation is NOT out of the picture.
Tom: Let’s see: God unconditionally decrees that I willingly reject God and God justly holds me responsible for this and sends me to hell. I know we’ve been here before, Mephi, but that God holds a person morally responsible for choosing what God unconditionally decrees that person to choose remains for me a meaningless proposition. When you say 1st type compatibilism may embrace salvation (and damnation) I have no way of attributing any meaning whatsoever to your words.
Hate to ask for one, but can you provide an analogy of this that will explain its meaning?
Mephi: Open view theism has no METAPHYSICAL GROUNDS upon which it can say that libertarianism is an ALL or NOTHING idea.
Tom: No open theist I know suggests it is an all or nothing idea. It’s been said a thousand times in the past two years on this board at least that libertarian free will is finite and probationary. It ultimately gives way to compatibilistic free will. So there certainly is no metaphysical grounds upon which I would insist that it is libertarianism always and forever. But this is not the issue. You’re now asserting “unconditionally predetermined morally responsible behavior” in claiming, essentially, that God can unconditionally determine people to deserve hell. I’m not questioning whether or not this is consistent with libertarian free will ‘some of the time’. I’m questioning the meaningfulness of the claim itself. The question isn’t, does God sometimes work compatibilistically and sometimes not? Both happen. The question is under what circumstances does God choose to work compatibilisitcally? And there’s certainly no metaphysical grounds for even suggesting that “unconditionally [1st type compatibilism] determined morally responsible behavior” is even meaningful. Ground the meaning of it for me if you can, in metaphysics or anywhere else.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/27/2003 10:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
quote:
I thought this was a miscontrual because no libertarian choice is made in absolute isolation from all influences and limits, which is how I took your capped “alone.” When we choose to say yes to God, we are not alone. We couldn’t make the choice without God’s aid. Of course, we may say no in spite of that aid, but we are still not alone in saying yes.
That’s not how I meant “alone”. I meant “alone” in terms of the individual being the SOLE reason, volitionally speaking, for doing an action. Or perhaps, I should say MAIN DETERMINANT for doing an action.
********************************
Tom:
quote:
I remember the example of the five lane boulevard narrowing to one lane, thus “constraining” the choice of which lane to drive on. Nice. But “constraining” or “limiting” the options is not enough to account for how it is God is able to guarantee that what he decrees comes to pass, for we may decide not to go driving all. Influence is not always a matter of constraining us by limiting the options we have. It is also causal if God is to guarantee that we will what he decrees.
Ok. What I’m trying to convey with this analogy is the IDEA of what would be happening with compatibilism. It’s not about limiting PERCEIVED options. I was just trying to talk in terms of the “wiggle room” In other words, this is how the continuous, carefully detailed, divine direction works. The influence ends up being causal.
******************************
Tom:
quote:
Let’s see: God unconditionally decrees that I willingly reject God and God justly holds me responsible for this and sends me to hell. I know we’ve been here before, Mephi, but that God holds a person morally responsible for choosing what God unconditionally decrees that person to choose remains for me a meaningless proposition. When you say 1st type compatibilism may embrace salvation (and damnation) I have no way of attributing any meaning whatsoever to your words.
I think it’s because you, in no way, separate the moral implications of compatibilism from the the compatibilism itself. You’ve GOT to do that, Tom. This is how I see you thinking…
It is NOT JUST to hold a person responsible for doing something that it was not in my power to refrain from doing. Therefore, to say that it is a JUST action for God to hold me responsible for my rejection of God that has I had no ability to refrain from doing makes no sense to me.
If this is what you are thinking, then I think that what you are saying is NOT that the proposition is meaningless. You are saying that the proposition goes against what YOU think is “just.” If that’s what you believe, then cool. But it’s NOT fundamentally incoherent as an idea to think otherwise.
******************************
Tom:
quote:
Hate to ask for one, but can you provide an analogy of this that will explain its meaning?
Nope. I’m not falling into this trap again. Here’s the bottom line: To the extent that one believes that moral culpability for an action is ONLY commensurate with one’s ABILITY, all things considered, to refrain from said action…there will be NO suitable analogy. I would give one and you would just say “But that doesn’t make sense” But my analogy WOULD be making sense. What you would be truly saying is “That’s not right.”
See, Tom. You are NOT going to get with the compatibilists on this one. They are willing to say, for various reasons, that it is COMPLETELY JUST of God to hold us accountable and responsible for things that we could not refrain from doing. You just won’t get with this. But THERE’S the divide…not the TYPES of compatibilism at work in open view theism.
*********************************
Tom:
quote:
No open theist I know suggests it is an all or nothing idea. It’s been said a thousand times in the past two years on this board at least that libertarian free will is finite and probationary. It ultimately gives way to compatibilistic free will. So there certainly is no metaphysical grounds upon which I would insist that it is libertarianism always and forever. But this is not the issue. You’re now asserting “unconditionally predetermined morally responsible behavior” in claiming, essentially, that God can unconditionally determine people to deserve hell. I’m not questioning whether or not this is consistent with libertarian free will ‘some of the time’. I’m questioning the meaningfulness of the claim itself. The question isn’t, does God sometimes work compatibilistically and sometimes not? Both happen. The question is under what circumstances does God choose to work compatibilisitcally? And there’s certainly no metaphysical grounds for even suggesting that “unconditionally [1st type compatibilism] determined morally responsible behavior” is even meaningful. Ground the meaning of it for me if you can, in metaphysics or anywhere else.
You KEEP inserting the moral responsibility thing in here! Don’t do that. This is why I SPECIFICALLY don’t deal with that. I KNOW that libertarians and compatibilists are GOING to disagree on that point. Cool. That is a divide that is there because of the differing ideas of “WHAT IS JUST” But NOT based on “WHAT COMPATIBILISM IS” as far as the mechanics.
What I’m trying to separate is this:
Given the metaphysical worldview of open view theism, God CAN operate by 1st type compatibilism.
from this…
Given a particular ideas of “what is just” and God being PERFECTLY JUST, legitimate moral accountability for created beings operating under 1st type compatibilism is incoherent.
YOU, Tom, are saying the second thing. And THAT is the point of the true divide…NOT compatibilism in itself.
I want to say that IT IS POSSIBLE for God to bring people to and allow people to not attain salvation by way of 1st type compatibilism…because this is ALLOWABLE by the framework of the open view. Whether you agree or disagree with the moral accountability of this is YOUR OWN ISSUE
What Doc wants to insinuate is that God wouldn’t be just or loving in doing what I’m saying. Well, that’s his opinion. Compatibilists have THEIR opinions on that as well, saying that God is loving and just while doing this. Cool. But what Doc CANNOT SAY is that the METAPHYSICS (INCLUDING CREATIONAL FACTORS) behind the open view don’t allow for 1st type compatibilism to occur. Notice what he said:
quote:
How far are you willing to go with the "God has a right" thing? Of course, God has no higher "law" he has to appeal to, so in that since he has the "right" to be as monstrous as anyone's tortured imagination might fantasize... even creating people for the soul purpose of unending unreleting nightmarish pain on them. But God himself has entered into a covenant with us, spelled out in Scripture, and covenants curtail rights. He has told us, among other things, that he isn't willing that any should perish, wants all to come to repentance, takes no delight in the destruction of the wicked, he died for all people, etc.... He has the "right" to be lying, of course, but if he's speaking the truth, then he has no right -- by his own word -- just to pick and choose who he loves enough to ensure salvation, who he loves only enough to open up the possibility of salvation, who he doesn't give a rip about and ensures their damnation, etc...
Catch that part. “God himself has entered into a covenant with us…” is another way of saying that God is erected SELF-LIMITING, CREATIONAL FACTORS that have METAPHYSICAL import because God is the Creator of reality. And on this basis, he wanted to say that it wasn’t metaphysically possible for 1st type compatibilism to exist.
BUT ALONG CAME THE GLORIFICATION PRINICIPLE…
which basically showed how some of God’s creational factors (along the “greater good” lines) could actually ALLOW for 1st type compatibilism to exist. Now, Doc can cry “UNJUST!” all he wants. But the fact is that all compatibilists NEED to say is that they DIFFER on how justice works…and Doc can’t say jack. Period.
Point blank. 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!
And this, my friends, is HUGE!
"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 8/27/2003 10:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Note:
Calvinists need to give up the “in such a way” type stuff. Just say this:
Look, even though WE, as human beings, largely believe that moral culpability for an action is commensurate with one’s ABILITY, all things considered, to refrain from said action…we don’t HAVE to say this with God. God has the right to do what God wills. LOOK AT ROMANS 9. If you, dear libertarian person, wish to call this hypocrisy or unfair or whatever, you do that. But understand that YOU are saying this about God. And that's deep. How are you any different in attitude than the questioner in Romans 9? How are you, the created, in ANY BETTER POSITION than the questioner in Romans 9 when asking these questions? You’re not. So now what?
| | 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 11:43 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|