 |
 | 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/15/2004 8:11 AM (GMT -6) |   | Lock-
That's all for the time being I guess. I didn't see that anything you wrote answered my question, which was: How is it that God can create beings who are morally responsible for their choices to love or not love and not stand in relation to the consequences of creating THIS sort of world?
I guess if one is a universalist, it all comes out in the wash. It doesn't really matter what's determined, what's not, what makes sense, what doesn't.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/15/2004 8:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid-
quote:
Call me a pragmatist, but this seems to be a gospel of "who cares". If God gives you the realization, great! you're set. If not, too bad, you're still set. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't our eathly (and/or unconscious fire and brimstone) existence pale to insignificance when compared with eternity?
Of course, our fleshy existence can in no way compare with what God has in store for us in Christ. I do not think it is a light thing to experience the judgment of God.
quote:
If God has determined who will receive the special knowledge, why bother with God? Why not live it up on earth, knowing that you can't change God's mind?
Sounds like you may have a problem with grace. Where sin abounds, grace superabounds. Paul said that even though the law is holy and just, it gave sin an incentive, producing all manner of sin (Rom. 7:9-12). For freedom, Christ frees us from the law. I am compelled by this freedom and the love of Christ, to follow His precepts. One could take this liberty to live a life fulfilling the passions of the flesh, but consequences of course would follow. Over-drinking will ruin the liver, fornincation can lead to disease and death, killing people will lead to jail or the death sentence. There are consequences for all sin, but also, did not Jesus die for all sin.
quote:
You said, "Man is unable to please God due to the weakness of this flesh (psuche)." But if you think Jesus was in the flesh (psuche), you've got Jesus being as sinful as us.
The bible says that man is unable to please God due to the weakness of the flesh so God sent His Son in the likeness of sin's flesh, that the requirement of the law would be fulfilled in us (Rom. 8:3). Jesus is the perfect man and of course, the only exception to be found in all humanity. How is it that Jesus died for our sins. he that knew no sin was made sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21).
quote:
It not the flesh that's the problem. God declared it very good.
Yes, God declared the psuche to be good. It was exactly what He wanted it to be in order to meet His purposes and divine plan for His creation. Look at the contrast in 1 Cor. 15 between what Adam became at creation (psuche)to that which Jesus became a life-giving spirit (pneume). You are assuming that the flesh became "fallen" after Adam sinned. Paul, quoting the creation account, says Adam became a living psuche (soul). The psuche is not the final product, but the pneuma is.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/15/2004 8:21 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Lock-
That's all for the time being I guess. I didn't see that anything you wrote answered my question, which was: How is it that God can create beings who are morally responsible for their choices to love or not love and not stand in relation to the consequences of creating THIS sort of world?
I guess if one is a universalist, it all comes out in the wash. It doesn't really matter what's determined, what's not, what makes sense, what doesn't.
Tom
Maybe I am not seeing your question the way you are intending. When you say that God expects us to be morally responsible, do you mean with or without His influence? Non-believers can be more loving than most christians, are they being more responsible? Only through Christ can our love reach the expectation of God. When you say "THIS sort of world" what do you mean?
I think a big part of it is that you see God's judgment as final and punitive, where I see them as corrective.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/15/2004 2:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
quote:
In the end, though, it's not really election "in time." In either case, if God is omniscient and foreknows all possible futures...
There does seem to be another possibility that allows for TRUE election "in time." If God does not foreknow all possibilities, but rather responds/acts in time with perfect wisdom and power, then election "in time" could be true. Those who are not written in the book of Life, would not, then, have been pre-determined to be lost.
There are plenty of verses that speak of God's "high" thoughts and wisdom, but I know of none that say God knows all possible contingencies. Thus, to me, such a supposition seems unnecessary to explain the biblical and philosophical data. Do you know of any such verses?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/16/2004 2:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid and Khan-
quote:
lock:I see the limits God has put on the flesh (psuche).
I used the wrong Greek word here, when I meant that I see limits on the flesh, I meant the limits set on the sarx, due to God subjecting the creation to vanity. I will edit my post, sorry for the confusion. Just to clear it up, I believe God formed man from the earth (flesh, sarx) and mixed it with the breath of life, (or spirit), and then man became a living soul (psuche). Our psuche, is influenced by the flesh (sarx) and Satan, to sin and we can be infuenced by God to make to right choices.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/16/2004 2:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom-
I think people are held morally accountable for their actions, but I believe it will be fairly judged by God.
Does Charles Manson deserve the same hell as the athiest doctor who every couple of years donates his services to impoverished South American families?
Does Hitler deserve the same hell as a non-believing humanitarian who helped a Jew escape during the Holocaust?
God will judge unbelievers "according to their acts". After this judgment is carried out, then they will be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, which is the second death. How is this not morally responible for their choices? lock
I don't know how we got onto the subject of universalism. I thought we were discussing the implications of free will for FOREKNOWLEDGE. I thought the open view was the subject. My question about God's having to stand in relation to the realities of love and moral responsibility (i.e., free will) were designed to explore the implications these have for God's knowledge of the future. I never had hell in mind. Not sure why you brought it in.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/16/2004 2:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
quote:
Tom-
I think people are held morally accountable for their actions, but I believe it will be fairly judged by God.
Does Charles Manson deserve the same hell as the athiest doctor who every couple of years donates his services to impoverished South American families?
Does Hitler deserve the same hell as a non-believing humanitarian who helped a Jew escape during the Holocaust?
God will judge unbelievers "according to their acts". After this judgment is carried out, then they will be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, which is the second death. How is this not morally responible for their choices? lock
I don't know how we got onto the subject of universalism. I thought we were discussing the implications of free will for FOREKNOWLEDGE. I thought the open view was the subject. My question about God's having to stand in relation to the realities of love and moral responsibility (i.e., free will) were designed to explore the implications these have for God's knowledge of the future. I never had hell in mind. Not sure why you brought it in.
Tom
God knows the beginning from the end. I believe this for each individual creation. Looking at an unbeliever, God knows what experiences they will go through and what choices they will make. It is held by OT-ers that God knows future possibilities. I believe God has designed all from the beginning. God is taking each creation through this life and giving them an experience of evil. We are creatures of comparison. How do we know we are well, unless we know how it feels to be sick? How are we to have a true understanding of God's goodness and love, unless we have experienced the evil and hate that is possible in this life? I have to include God's judgments within this experience because I don't think they are final. They are a part of the process. I do not think evil and hell is eternal, they are only going to be around long enough to suit God's purpose for them.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/16/2004 2:52 AM (GMT -6) | | A soft-determinist universalist. Interesting.
Still, you've said nothing about, have not dealt with, and are not engaging the arguments for libertarian free will from moral responsibility, personal relationships, and the nature of love. In an unconditionally and exhaustively predetermined world, I don't see how any of these (responsibility, personal relationships, and love) can exist.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 9/16/2004 3:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
I believe God has designed all from the beginning. God is taking each creation through this life and giving them an experience of evil. We are creatures of comparison. How do we know we are well, unless we know how it feels to be sick? How are we to have a true understanding of God's goodness and love, unless we have experienced the evil and hate that is possible in this life?
How can you tell good and evil, success and failure apart if all of them come from God, were designed by God?
Why did you throw the hissy fit when your circular reasoning and liars paradox were pointed out to you? Wasn't this designed by God for you as well?
If we're to imitate God, we should be persuing evil and failure as well, right?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/16/2004 3:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Hard determinist? Oh, I thought Lock granted that we are 'responsible' for our actions. In other words, soft-determinists believe God unconditionally predetermines us "in such a way" that we remain justly responsible. A hard-determinist just admits that we can't be responsible for our actions in such cases but responds with, "So what? If God wants to send you to hell he doesn't need to make it look like you're to blame."
Cool. So Lock, you're a hard determinist? Never actually met one.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 9/16/2004 3:23 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Hard determinist? Oh, I thought Lock granted that we are 'responsible' for our actions. In other words, soft-determinists believe God unconditionally predetermines us "in such a way" that we remain justly responsible. A hard-determinist just admits that we can't be responsible for our actions in such cases but responds with, "So what? If God wants to send you to hell he doesn't need to make it look like you're to blame."
Cool. So Lock, you're a hard determinist? Never actually met one.
Tom
He's actually confusing (his incoherence being designed by God), he says God knows the future and he says God designed everything, he says we're responsible, he says whatever pops into his head at the time, imho.
Witness his circular reasoning and liars paradox (he believes the bible is the word of God because the bible says it's the word of God  ), (he believes that all men are liars because a man wrote that  )
So why did he throw a hissy fit?
God designed the hissy fit as well..... doh
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/16/2004 3:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: There are plenty of verses that speak of God's "high" thoughts and wisdom, but I know of none that say God knows all possible contingencies. Thus, to me, such a supposition seems unnecessary to explain the biblical and philosophical data. Do you know of any such verses?
Tom: I think we did this before didn't we? Kinda think so. Well, the overall biblical picture, I think, points to God's knowing all creation perfectly. On the philosophical side, it's certainly arguable that future possibilities are part of creation NOW. That is, though the states of affairs they describe have not occured, the conditions that make it true that they might and might not occur exist now in present reality. This is what makes propositions positing contingent states of affairs true or false. Their truth conditions either obtain or do not obtain in present reality.
So are you agreeing that God's omniscience WOULD include the knowledge of such present truths but then arguing that such truths don't exist? Or are you saying such truths DO exist but that nothing in Scripture or reason warrants our believing God actually knows them?
Yeah, I remember. We discussed this somewhere way back. I think I argued too that God's not knowing possibilities would leave God less than adequately equipped in the providential sense. If God doesn't know future possibilities, then how does he plan for them?
And why think God knows even future certainties that follow from present states of affairs (which he does know)? For example, why think God knows as determinate that the person who just jumped off a 20 story building WILL die? He knows because this future-tense "will" is grounded in the presently obtaining state of affairs "his having jumped off a 20 story building and being physically incapable of surviving the impact that's coming" which God does know. But if God knows future certainties that are grounded in presently obtaining states of affairs (viz., present reality), then why think God would NOT know future possibilities that are also grounded in presently obtaining states of affairs? So if you don't believe God knows future possibilities, why believe he knows future certainties?
Do this Jeff. Forget what I just said above. Just answer this: Do you believe God knows present reality exhaustively and infallibly? If the answer is "yes," then let me ask a second question: If I can show you that all future events (whether determinate or contingent) are grounded in conditions that obtain in present reality, then would you agree that it then follows that infallible knowledge of present reality by defintion entails infallible knowledge of what is entailed by present reality?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 9/16/2004 3:42 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Cool. So Lock, you're a hard determinist? Never actually met one.
Tom, I've met hard-determinists before.
One guy, Ron, told me he woke up one day and was a Christian.
I said, no, you had to have made a choice, but he insisted he was saved by God and had made no decision, no profession of faith on his own, God just saved him. Well, you can't argue with someone's testimony. I was bewildered.
Within the year, he exposed himself to some pre-teen girls and was kicked out of school. When they questioned him, he said "I can't help it, this is the way God made me". A true determinist being honest to his beliefs.
Fortunately most determinists don't act according to their ignorant beliefs.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/16/2004 4:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Jeff, give this a read and tell me what you think.
P1: Present reality is the sum total of presently obtaining states of affairs.
P2: Some presently obtaining states of affairs render it determinately the case that some future states of affairs obtain.
P3: Some presently obtaining states of affairs render it determinately that case that some future states of affairs not obtain.
P4: Some presently obtaining states of affairs render it indeterminately the case that some future states of affairs obtain.
P5: Thus, at any given point in time, whether a state of affairs “will,” “will not,” or “might and might not” obtain is determined by present reality (from P1 through P4).
P6: Infallible knowledge of a thing entails infallible knowledge of what that thing entails.
P7: At any given point in time God has infallible knowledge of reality at that point in time (or God infallibly knows present reality).
P8: At any given point in time, God has infallible knowledge of what reality at that point in time entails (from P6 and P7).
P9: At any given point in time, reality renders it determinately the case that some states of affairs will obtain, renders it determinately the case that some states of affairs will not obtain, and renders it indeterminately the case that some states of affairs obtain (cf. P5)
Conclusion: At any given point in time, God has infallible knowledge of what “will,” “will not,” and “might and might not” obtain.
First tell me if you think the argument is a valid one. Agreeing that it is doesn’t mean agreeing that its conclusion is true. It only means agreeing that its conclusion follows logically from the premises (which might or might not all be true, we’ll see). But if the premises are true and the argument is valid, then the conclusion is true. If one premise is false, the conclusion is not valid, thought the conclusion still might be true (it’s just that the argument doesn’t prove that it’s true and I’ll have to restate things better).
So, first, is this a valid argument? I want to get a valid argument first, and THEN move on to whether the premises are true or not, OK?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/16/2004 9:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Exactly, Kublai.
Lock: Where in what I said did I claim we are not responsible for our actions?
Tom: Nowhere. You grant we ARE responsible. That's good. You just hold to another belief--exhausitve and unconditional determinism--that is incompatible with holding people responsible. So just claiming that we're responsible doesn't mean you've made sense of responsibility.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/16/2004 10:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Kublai Khan
quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Hard determinist? Oh, I thought Lock granted that we are 'responsible' for our actions. In other words, soft-determinists believe God unconditionally predetermines us "in such a way" that we remain justly responsible. A hard-determinist just admits that we can't be responsible for our actions in such cases but responds with, "So what? If God wants to send you to hell he doesn't need to make it look like you're to blame."
Cool. So Lock, you're a hard determinist? Never actually met one.
Tom
Where in what I said did I claim we are not responsible for our actions?
lock to six year olds: "Unless you dunk the basketball on this regulation court, you cannot eat lunch today."
six year old kids: "We don't have the ability to dunk the basketball."
lock to six year olds: "I'm still holding you responsible."
what a sham
This scenerio lacks the most important detail. Lock says, "students now that you have come to the realization that you are unable to dunk on the ten foot basket on your own. I will bring in my substitute for you, who I predesignated beforehand to dunk in your place, kids, meet Micheal Jordan."
Grace is not a sham
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/16/2004 1:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Lock: This scenerio lacks the most important detail. Lock says, "students now that you have come to the realization that you are unable to dunk on the ten foot basket on your own. I will bring in my substitute for you, who I predesignated beforehand to dunk in your place, kids, meet Micheal Jordan."
Tom: Close but no booby prize. What you really say is (my additions in bold): "Students now that I have unconditionally predetermined SOME of you to realize that you are unable to dunk on the ten foot basket on your own, I will bring in my substitute for those of you I've elected, who I predesignated beforehand to dunk in SOME of your places. Unconditionally elected kids, meet Micheal Jordan."
But for the unelected majority of kids in the world, God determined their inability to not dunk, determined that they not realize this, blames them for not realizing this, determined that Jordan NOT dunk in their places, blames them for their not allowing Jordan to dunk for them, and then sends them to hell to roast until they realize that all of this really does make sense and that they really ARE responsible as God says they are, at which time God saves them.
It's in your favor that you refuse to belief that God unconditionaly predetermines some for eternal hell. In the end, everybody makes it. But it doesn't rescue the incompatibility of your viewss. Unconditional predetermination is still incompatible with you belief that God holds people responsible for the sins that send them to corrective temporary torment in hell.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/16/2004 3:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
quote:
P1: Present reality is the sum total of presently obtaining states of affairs.
P2: Some presently obtaining states of affairs render it determinately the case that some future states of affairs obtain.
P3: Some presently obtaining states of affairs render it determinately that case that some future states of affairs not obtain.
P4: Some presently obtaining states of affairs render it indeterminately the case that some future states of affairs obtain.
P5: Thus, at any given point in time, whether a state of affairs “will,” “will not,” or “might and might not” obtain is determined by present reality (from P1 through P4).
P6: Infallible knowledge of a thing entails infallible knowledge of what that thing entails.
P7: At any given point in time God has infallible knowledge of reality at that point in time (or God infallibly knows present reality).
P8: At any given point in time, God has infallible knowledge of what reality at that point in time entails (from P6 and P7).
P9: At any given point in time, reality renders it determinately the case that some states of affairs will obtain, renders it determinately the case that some states of affairs will not obtain, and renders it indeterminately the case that some states of affairs obtain (cf. P5)
Conclusion: At any given point in time, God has infallible knowledge of what “will,” “will not,” and “might and might not” obtain.
Let me use my view of Satan's fall as a context to make my reply to this syllogism. As I understand it (contrary to Lock and other universalists), Satan was not created evil or with an inevitable tendency towards evil. Rather, iniquity was "found" in his heart at some point of time after the creation when he purposed to be as the Most High (who will rightfully be blessed forever!!). So let me go about 12 hrs prior to this iniquitous thought of Satan's and apply it to the syllogism.
P6: Infallible knowledge of a thing entails infallible knowledge of what that thing entails.
ME: Satan's heart was not iniquitous 12 hrs. prior to his "fall." But I don't know what that would "entail" other than his heart was not iniquitous.
P7: At any given point in time God has infallible knowledge of reality at that point in time (or God infallibly knows present reality).
ME: God knew infallibly what was in Satan's heart prior to his "fall."
P8: At any given point in time, God has infallible knowledge of what reality at that point in time entails (from P6 and P7).
ME: Per my response to P6:, though Satan's heart was yet innocent at this point in time, I don't know what that "entails."
P9: At any given point in time, reality renders it determinately the case that some states of affairs will obtain, renders it determinately the case that some states of affairs will not obtain, and renders it indeterminately the case that some states of affairs obtain (cf. P5)
ME: I don't know that it was a "state of affairs" that rendered Satan's future iniquity possible. Rather, I only know Satan is capable of libertarian free-will. Hence, it is that capacity that renders certain future actions possible by such agents, not merely a prior "state of affairs," unless you are including capacities as "states of affairs."
Conclusion: At any given point in time, God has infallible knowledge of what “will,” “will not,” and “might and might not” obtain.
ME: I would say that at any given point in time, God has infallible knowledge of ranges of possiblities if He so chooses to consider all those possiblities. If, on the other hand, He chooses to respond to such a "state of affairs" in some certain manner, He need not even consider all those possibilities, as they may be irrelevant to Him. Just as I don't consider all possibilites when responding to circumstances. My own volitional and purposeful responses to "states of affairs" render irrelevant to me a vast number of possible outcomes of those "states of affairs." How much more so might this be the case with God, who has complete control over all "states of affairs" and is yet only acting providentially towards a finite set of ends which may or may not be affected by the vast majority of "affairs."
Therefore, I don't know how to prove biblically or philosophically that God is any different qualitatively than humans in His volitional responses to His own creation. For example, did the actions of North American Indians from 2000 BC to 1000 BC really have any influence on God's providential purposes? I can't see how. And if not, why would God even have to consider all the possible outcomes of their volitions? Moreover, if things did start to get out of hand amongst the North American Indians, only God's infallible knowledge of the present state of affairs would have been necessary for Him to act to restrict their influence on His plans. He would have had no need to have known billions of years earlier.
I prefer this approach for two reasons. First, as I said earlier, I know of many verses that boast of God's amazingly wise responses to the world's affairs, but know of no biblical or philosophical reasons to believe that God is eternally aware of all possible contingencies. Second, it seems more harmonious with my view of God's complete goodness that He not be eternally contemplative of zillions of horrid and morbid contingencies if such a contemplation is not necessary to Him or His purposes.
So, if my contention is possible, true election "in time" would be philosophically compatible with the open view. But I would still say that God would only elect if there were none (or too few) that would come to Him otherwise. But I think a case can be made for that point of view - especially from Romans 3.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
| 110 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:26 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 |
|
|