 |
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/2/2003 4:41 AM (GMT -6) |   | I was reading Paul Helseth’s article in the book “Beyond the Bounds” and I found it interesting for a number of reasons. I want to focus in on a term that he used that I kind of dig: compatibilistic exploitation. Though Helseth never formally defines the term, I think it’s pretty simple to figure out what he means. Compatibilistic exploitation occurs when God uses the self-solidified characteristics of a person for God’s own purposes by way of manipulating the person and/or situational conditions surrounding the person. It’s extremely important to note that the characteristics are solidified by the free willed person and not by God.
Now, taking this, I have a question.
Is God responsible for any PARTICULAR acts or episodes of moral evil that are generated by God’s compatibilistic exploitation activities? In other words…
If person A knows that person B has a self-solidified character trait X, and A manipulates both person B and her environment such that B acts out character trait X, causing morally evil situation Y to result, is A morally culpable for the situation Y that results from B’s actions?
An example.
Let’s say that a person is a SELF-SOLIDIFIED pyromaniac who will ALWAYS cause arson if provided with the right opportunity and tools, which to him are the following: a match, a can of gasoline, some newspaper, and an apartment building. ALL of these things have to be in place for him to do the arson. Now, let’s say that I don’t like this certain building and I want it burned to the ground. I manipulate things such that this pyromaniac will walk down the street that I choose at around the time I choose it. Moreover, I intentionally place a box of matches and a can of gasoline RIGHT IN FRONT of the building that I want him to burn down…that just HAPPENS to have a stack of newspapers in the doorway! As expected, he takes the materials, burns the building and kills a couple of people.
Person A: Me
Person B: The pyromaniac
Character Trait X: The disposition to cause arson if provided with the right opportunity and tools
Morally evil situation Y: Destruction of property; death of persons by fire and smoke inhalation
Now, would we say that I am in ANY WAY culpable for the act of arson caused by the pyromaniac? Of course, I’m not responsible for the pyromania of person B, nor am I responsible for how he does that pyromania in his head. But given the fact that I USED his pyromania, via my manipulation and orchestration, to my own destructive ends, would we say that I am somewhat responsible for the particular evil act that emerged from all my manipulation and orchestration? Or would we say that I am absolved of any wrongdoing because I was not the one who actually lit the building on fire AND because I didn’t “force” the guy to do anything against his will?
I think that MOST people would say that I am at least guilty of CONSPIRACY to commit arson. AT LEAST! I would be a significant partaker in the share of moral guilt about the evil deed.
Cool. Now let’s talk about Peter’s denial of Christ!
Doc says that God knew that Peter was solidified to the the extent that it was certain to God that Peter would deny Jesus if the circumstances were just right. Doc also said that God provided the right context to “squeeze” this denial out of Peter’s solidified, cowardly nature. Let’s diagram…
Person A: God
Person B: Peter
Character Trait X: The cowardly disposition to deny the Son of God, if provided with the right context
Morally evil situation Y: Denying Jesus, the Son of God
If I’m not mistaken, denying Christ is a pretty big offense. Yeah. Remember all that stuff that Jesus said about denying him before people?
Matt. 10:32-33
“Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven.
Hmmm… Yep. I think that implies a pretty hefty sin there. So, if the logic holds, would we be within our rights to say that God should share the MORAL GUILT for Peter’s denial of Christ? It would seem so. It would seem very obvious that the open view God is INDEED quite the conspirator…when it suits God’s purposes.
******************************
But there’s another problem. Was Peter REALLY “solidified” when the denials took place?? When Doc says that Peter’s character was “solidified” such that it was CERTAIN to God that Peter WOULD deny Jesus three times given the right context, what does Doc mean? Helseth points out something very important in a footnote on page 294. He says….
Boyd’s comments on character solidification in this quotation are vague. When he says, “solidified to the extent that,” does that mean “irreversibly” established and “permanently” or “unalterably” aquired? Or does he really mean something less than “irreversibly” established and “permanently” or “unalterably” aquired? If “solidified to the extent that” really means something less than really “solid,” then how are we to avoid the conclusion that we are all compatibilistically free, even with regard to those character traits that have yet to be “permanently” fixed or settled? Are not all of our character traits solidified to one extent or another? What, then, does it really mean to say that a character trait is solidified “to the extent that” it serves as a legitimate candidate for compatibilistic exploitation, particularly when that character trait changes when it is manipulated compatibilistically?
Do y’all get what he’s saying? He’s asking the simple question: Does solidification of character REALLY MEAN that it’s UNCHANGABLE? From what I understand, that is what Doc usually means. Character solidification occurs when a being has freely made choices consistently and so habituated itself such that it NO LONGER is within that being’s power to do otherwise. That beings’s choices has become it’s unchangable character…and this allows complete predictability of behavior with respect to actions that emerge from that character.
But Doc’s saying something different when it comes to Peter. Doc wants to say that Peter was solidified in his cowardice such that it was CERTAIN to God that Peter would deny Christ in context C…but then turn around and say that Peter’s nature not only CHANGED as a result of his denial…but was actually “crystallized in the form of an irreversible character”!
HOLD THE PHONE! How can Peter have been solidified in his cowardly nature…if Peter CHANGED said nature later on? It must not have been truly solidified! If it were truly solidified, then there could have been no way that his cowardly nature would have been changed. Obviously the real solidification didn’t take place until AFTER Peter denied Christ and felt remorse.
But doesn’t that mean that God would have been doing all that compatibilistic exploitation BEFORE character solidification had fully taken place??? Check out Helseth’s argument from Page 293-295. All italics Helseth’s. All bold mine. (Note: All of Helseth’s quotes of Doc are cited in the book’s footnotes. I’m way too lazy to put em all.)
-----------
Consider Boyd’s treatment of Peter’s denial of Jesus. Boyd says, “it should be clear that this episode poses no significant problem for the open view of the future.” I, on the other hand, contend that it undermines the coherence of his entire program. As we have seen, openness theologians like Boyd are convicined that there is such an intimate relationship between established moral character and moral activity that when self-determined individuals are “squeezed” in the correct fashion, their behavior is not only “predictable,” it is “certain.” It is no longer contingent, in other words, but settled because it flows out of the the very nature of the acting agent, and for this reason the agent retains responsibility for performing the event. It is the exploitation of character in this particular sense, then, that Boyd, suggests is manifest in the case of Peter’s “divinely orchestrated lesson.” “God,” Boyd argues, "knew and perfectly anticipated (as though it was the only possible outcome) that if the world proceeded exactly as it did up to the point of the Last Supper, Peter's character would be solidified to the extent that he would be the kind of person who would deny Christ in a certain situation…On the basis of this knowledge and his sovereign control as Creator, God decided at some point to providentially ensure that just this situation would come about,” and then actualized the event by orchestrating “highly pressurized circumstances” that “squeezed” Peter’s cowardly character out of him three times.
Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that what we are calling “soft” coercion is compatible with the foundational assumptions of the openness program, the case of Peter’s denial of Jesus still presents insurmountable difficulties for the openness program because it establishes, despite what openness theologians like Boyd would have us believe, that the God of open theism is willing to violate the self-determining freedom of contingent beings in order to bring about states of affairs that he really wants to bring about. Remember, openness theologians insist that when God creates moral agents, he gives each agent the gift of self-determining freedom “and binds himself to interact with [them] in ways that honor that [gift of] self-determination.” In other words, he covenants not to “coerce [their] decisions” until they have “spent” their gift of self-determining freedom and their self-determined decisions have given way to a self-determined character that is compatibilistically free and inclined either for or against God. What Boyd’s treatment of Peter in fact establishes, however, is that God worked coercively with Peter before Peter’s character became “crystallized in the form of an irreversible character.” Indeed, Boyd contends that God’s compatibilistic manipulation of Peter was the “loving but necessarily harsh” means by which Peter’s character “was permanently changed,” thereby conceding that Peter’s character was never irreversibly established or “eternalized” in the first place. What the case of Peter really suggests, then, is both the coherence of a more full-bodied form of compatibilism—one that recognizes that genuinely free actions can be foreknown and even determined even if the character of the acting agent has yet to be “solidified” or “established”---and the utter untrustworthiness of the God of open theism. Since the God of open theism coerced Peter before Peter’s character was “unalterably” acquired, it is reasonable to conclude that the God of open theism is a covenant breaker who could accomplish his purposes only by revoking the “irrevocable” gift of self-determining freedom that he gave Peter.
-------------------------
This is pretty substantial. The only way out for Doc that I could see would be to say that Peter’s thrice denial was known as CERTAIN to God (meaning the probability that Peter would deny Christ three times = 1…even though Peter’s character WASN’T solidified! And that is highly problematic…cause the ONLY way to do that would be by coercion.
*************************************
So, here’s the score…
IF we were to grant that God could somehow be certain about Peter’s denial, even though Peter’s character was not solidified, we’d still have to say that God broke the rules about coercion by rendering it CERTAIN that Peter would deny Christ…in order for Peter to have a SOLIDIFIED character later.
Now, compounding the covenant breaking, we’d also have to say that God is MORALLY CULPABLE for having Peter deny the Son of God. God would be guilty of conspiracy and, in that respect, be the author of a grevious sin. Even if Peter’s character WERE solidified at the time of the denials, this would be true.
I think Paul Helseth is raising some important stuff here. Doc, what’s your response? Make it good, man.
"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 11/2/2003 9:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Let’s throw some more logs on this fire, shall we?
If God CAN do “compatibilistic exploitation” when God wants to, whose to say that God couldn’t do this in morally evil situations OTHER than Peter’s? Who’s to say that God couldn’t use…say…a Nazi guard’s solidified fetish for beautiful eyes and hatred for Jews and “squeeze” out the order to dig little Zosia’s eyes out…all for God’s unknown purposes? Hey, DON’T TRIP. It’s possible, Doc, and you know it. If God can ordain a person to deny his own Son ( a TERRIBLE offense, biblically speaking), why NOT say that something like the Zosia event could have been ordained for redemptive reasons that YOU don’t understand. Compatibilistic exploitation can be used for those “sacrificing the rook for the queen” things you’re always talking about. You have NO GROUNDS upon which to say it ain’t possible, now, do ya?
Gimme an inch, Doc…I’ll take 2 miles. It’s the PRINCIPLE of the thing.
NOW what???
Tom, you get in on this too…since you are Doc’s twin and 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 | | |
|
timlings
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130
| Posted 11/2/2003 10:32 AM (GMT -6) | | It seems like I get first dibs!
My problem with the whole Peter thing is that I don't get the impression that God really wanted Peter to deny Jesus. After all, Jesus says that satan asked to sift Peter like wheat [or words to that effect]. So Peter's denial is somewhat to do with satan too. So maybe God 'let' Peter deny Jesus, in the same way that God 'let' satan trash Job.
I think Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial was a saddened one. I don't think that God was wringing his hands behind the scenes thinking "now how can I get that Peter to deny my son?".
So there we go.
I agree Mephi, that your scenario would make the person A morally responsible for what's going on. But I would argue that God isn't doing that in the case of Peter's denial.
The book of Habakkuk deals with this situation a bit I think. I might go and have a read at some point.
love
timlings | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 11/2/2003 3:39 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
MehpE, quoting Helseth:
Since the God of open theism coerced Peter before Peter’s character was “unalterably” acquired, it is reasonable to conclude that the God of open theism is a covenant breaker who could accomplish his purposes only by revoking the “irrevocable” gift of self-determining freedom that he gave Peter.
In order to say that God “revoked” someone’s gift of freedom, we’d have to know the exact extent of the gift of freedom in the first place. But it seems obvious that we are not in a position to know the extent of freedom in general or how the “covenant” bears on any particular situation. We only know that some limited amount of irrevocable freedom is necessary (TWT1, TWT5). As we have seen, this allows for a great amount of providential activity on God’s part in relation to free creatures. God is smart enough to know which possible divine activities would and would not constitute “covenant breaking” and we can trust that God is not a “covenant breaker” even though we are not in a position (epistemically or otherwise) to hold him accountable.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/2/2003 8:41 PM (GMT -6) | | JET:
quote:
In order to say that God “revoked” someone’s gift of freedom, we’d have to know the exact extent of the gift of freedom in the first place. But it seems obvious that we are not in a position to know the extent of freedom in general or how the “covenant” bears on any particular situation. We only know that some limited amount of irrevocable freedom is necessary (TWT1, TWT5). As we have seen, this allows for a great amount of providential activity on God’s part in relation to free creatures. God is smart enough to know which possible divine activities would and would not constitute “covenant breaking” and we can trust that God is not a “covenant breaker” even though we are not in a position (epistemically or otherwise) to hold him accountable.
Not in this case, JET. In order for Peter’s thrice denial to be a CERTAINTY to God [where Prob(p)=1] without Peter’s cowardly nature being solidified, there would HAVE to be a revoking of ANY amount of freedom that Peter had to do otherwise. No ifs, ands, or buts.
****************************
Tim:
quote:
My problem with the whole Peter thing is that I don't get the impression that God really wanted Peter to deny Jesus. After all, Jesus says that satan asked to sift Peter like wheat [or words to that effect]. So Peter's denial is somewhat to do with satan too. So maybe God 'let' Peter deny Jesus, in the same way that God 'let' satan trash Job.
Ok. But would you say that IF someone believed that Peter’s denial really WAS orchestrated in a manner of “compatiblistic exploitation” (where God orchestrated events such that Peter’s “solidified” cowardly character would end up in Peter’s denying Jesus 3 times), that they would, most likely, HAVE to say that God bears some moral responsibility for Peter’s sin of denying the Son of God?
"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 | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/3/2003 4:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Solidification of Peter's nature is not necessary for Peter to fulfill Christ's words; the "bent" of Peter's disposition, which God knew perfectly, is enough.
Peter's freedom is not taken away; God simply knows that Peter is of such-and-such disoposition that he cannot hold up under certain pressures: he will deny Christ. Peter was not forced to do this, though. Had Peter understood his own disposition, which in time he would come to understand much better than he understood it at the time of Christ's trial, he could have changed the circumstances and thus not denied Christ. If anything, he could have run away from the trial scene, not as a coward, but to ensure that he would not deny Christ. As it was, however, he had already been denying Christ in his heart well before his moment of truth.
Note: had Peter caught on to what he was really all about, and had run away to secure a non-denial, I would not see this as Christ having given false prophecy anymore than I cannot see God having given false prophecy to Jonah. In that God seems quite willing to change His mind, even in regard to the outcome of prophecy, when the context is that of man repenting, it would not be a problem if Peter wised up and removed himself from the context causing him to deny Christ. But ... this was never going to happen. Peter opened his mouth and inserted his foot with "I'll never deny you," and Jesus just took the statement to its ultimate proof: "Yes, you will." It's not like Jesus had to worry that Peter might wise up and change the whole scenario; Jesus knew Peter's disposition much too well to have to worry about that happening. As a matter of fact, that's the whole point of the matter.
Finally, that God moves Peter into the position of denying Christ is not to say God is culpable of evil. Rather, God has simply loved Peter enough to demonstrate to him--a man who desperately loved Jesus but was in it way too deep (at this point in the game) to handle it with spiritual maturity--that he was not as committed in his love to Jesus as he thought was. After Jesus' resurrection, Jesus tells Peter that he's going to be crucified for Him. So, is Jesus culpable for this act of evil? Again, the context in which God must work is sin and sinful man. God will use sin and evil to bring glory to the name of God, to Jesus and to the building up of the body of Jesus. And in Peter's case, this prophetic utterance about future would THIS TIME become something to covet and not run from.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/3/2003 5:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Matt. 26:34
Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.”
Matt. 26:75
Then Peter remembered what Jesus had said: “Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.
Mark 14:30
Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, this day, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.”
Mark 14:72
At that moment the cock crowed for the second time. Then Peter remembered that Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.
Luke 22:34
Jesus said, “I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you have denied three times that you know me.”
Luke 22:60-62
But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about!” At that moment, while he was still speaking, the cock crowed. The Lord turned and looked at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the cock crows today, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.
John 13:38
Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for me? Very truly, I tell you, before the cock crows, you will have denied me three times.
John 18:25-27
Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They asked him, “You are not also one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it and said, “I am not.” One of the slaves of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” Again Peter denied it, and at that moment the cock crowed.
Stark, look at this. This account is in ALL FOUR gospels. It’s very apparent that this was a SPECIFIC, PARTICULAR prophecy by Jesus about HOW MANY TIMES Peter would deny Christ. I believe Doc’s explanation is the best one for this…in that God really did set things up such that Peter WOULD have 3 distinct opportunities in which Jesus could (and would) be denied by Peter. Read Doc’s explanation of the account.
There is no “simple knowing” going on here.
"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 11/3/2003 6:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Stark:
quote:
Finally, that God moves Peter into the position of denying Christ is not to say God is culpable of evil. Rather, God has simply loved Peter enough to demonstrate to him--a man who desperately loved Jesus but was in it way too deep (at this point in the game) to handle it with spiritual maturity--that he was not as committed in his love to Jesus as he thought was. After Jesus' resurrection, Jesus tells Peter that he's going to be crucified for Him. So, is Jesus culpable for this act of evil? Again, the context in which God must work is sin and sinful man. God will use sin and evil to bring glory to the name of God, to Jesus and to the building up of the body of Jesus. And in Peter's case, this prophetic utterance about future would THIS TIME become something to covet and not run from.
The fact of the matter, Stark, is that God placed Peter into a situation where God KNEW that Peter would deny Christ. Forget the “ends justifying the means” stuff. If denying Christ before others is a SERIOUS OFFENSE (remember that Matt 10 passage?), then God is guilty of coercing Peter into comitting this offense…and is in that way morally culpable for it. How can God NOT be?
"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 | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/3/2003 6:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Yo, Meph,
quote:
Stark, look at this. This account is in ALL FOUR gospels. It’s very apparent that this was a SPECIFIC, PARTICULAR prophecy by Jesus about HOW MANY TIMES Peter would deny Christ. I believe Doc’s explanation is the best one for this…in that God really did set things up such that Peter WOULD have 3 distinct opportunities in which Jesus could (and would) be denied by Peter. Read Doc’s explanation of the account.
I'm in agreement with you here. I'm sorry if I didn't convey this same concept.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 11/3/2003 8:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
MephEternal:
Not in this case, JET. In order for Peter’s thrice denial to be a CERTAINTY to God [where Prob(p)=1] without Peter’s cowardly nature being solidified, there would HAVE to be a revoking of ANY amount of freedom that Peter had to do otherwise. No ifs, ands, or buts.
In order for Peter's denials to be a certainty, Peter did not have to be forever solidified with a cowardly nature. Rather, Jesus would simply have to know that Peter’s character (in regards to whether he would deny Christ) was solidified to the extent that it would not change in the next several hours. Perhaps his present character, if left unchecked, could have become even further solidified.
To the extent Peter's character was solidified, God "exploited" this fact to "squeeze" out the truth for Peter to see. God is graciously showing Peter the truth so that Peter may freely avoid further solidification.
Do we really have enough information about the nature and extent of freedom in the first place to say that this constitutes covenant breaking?
Do we know that the covenant is such that God would have to revoke something in order to act this way?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/3/2003 10:41 AM (GMT -6) | | JET:
quote:
In order for Peter's denials to be a certainty, Peter did not have to be forever solidified with a cowardly nature. Rather, Jesus would simply have to know that Peter’s character (in regards to whether he would deny Christ) was solidified to the extent that it would not change in the next several hours. Perhaps his present character, if left unchecked, could have become even further solidified.
To the extent Peter's character was solidified, God "exploited" this fact to "squeeze" out the truth for Peter to see. God is graciously showing Peter the truth so that Peter may freely avoid further solidification.
Meph:
Here’s the problem with this, JET. The problem is with what Doc SAYS in his works. Helseth says….
quote:
Remember, openness theologians insist that when God creates moral agents, he gives each agent the gift of self-determining freedom “and binds himself to interact with [them] in ways that honor that [gift of] self-determination.” In other words, he covenants not to “coerce [their] decisions” until they have “spent” their gift of self-determining freedom and their self-determined decisions have given way to a self-determined character that is compatibilistically free and inclined either for or against God.
Doc has said this NUMEROUS times on the board here. These are the rules of the game. God supposedly covenants to ONLY do compatibilistic type manipulation when a person has given up their OWN ability to choose otherwise. This takes place with complete solidification. Otherwise, it would still be the case that it would have GENUINELY been in the being’s ability to do otherwise. As long as the being has the genuine ability to choose whether or not to do something, God covenants not to use compatibilistic exploitation in that area. TWT 1 and TWT 4. Character solidification has occurred when there is NO genuine ability to choose whether or not to do something…because it has become a habituated part of one’s character.
So the “to the extent” thing is really a problem does NOT go with what Doc says the rules are. Helseth deals with it, too…
quote:
Boyd’s comments on character solidification in this quotation are vague. When he says, “solidified to the extent that,” does that mean “irreversibly” established and “permanently” or “unalterably” aquired? Or does he really mean something less than “irreversibly” established and “permanently” or “unalterably” aquired? If “solidified to the extent that” really means something less than really “solid,” then how are we to avoid the conclusion that we are all compatibilistically free, even with regard to those character traits that have yet to be “permanently” fixed or settled? Are not all of our character traits solidified to one extent or another? What, then, does it really mean to say that a character trait is solidified “to the extent that” it serves as a legitimate candidate for compatibilistic exploitation, particularly when that character trait changes when it is manipulated compatibilistically?
Doc is waffling.
But let’s say that were WERE to take that thinking. That God can operate with compatibilistic exploitation on things that are only PARTIALLY (and we don’t know how much) solidified. Can we see how this would work out, practically speaking? God would virtually have CARTE BLANCHE when it came to all kinds of areas in our lives. There would be NO END to things that God could have done to prevent MANY evils. The problem of evil would then become completely intractible! I really don’t think that you…or Doc…would want to go this route.
**********************************
JET:
quote:
Do we really have enough information about the nature and extent of freedom in the first place to say that this constitutes covenant breaking?
Yes, we do…if we take what Doc has said over and over again, both in his writings AND on this board.
*************************************
JET:
quote:
Do we know that the covenant is such that God would have to revoke something in order to act this way?
Yep. See above.
********************************
But here’s something I notice, JET. You haven’t said whether or not 1) Peter was morally responsible for his denial of Christ and 2) God was in SOME way morally culpable for orchestrating the scene for Peter’s thrice denial.
What do you think?
"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 | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/3/2003 11:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph,
quote:
The fact of the matter, Stark, is that God placed Peter into a situation where God KNEW that Peter would deny Christ. Forget the “ends justifying the means” stuff. If denying Christ before others is a SERIOUS OFFENSE (remember that Matt 10 passage?), then God is guilty of coercing Peter into comitting this offense…and is in that way morally culpable for it. How can God NOT be?
If God places you in a position where you must choose good or evil, right or wrong--it doesn't matter if it's via prophecy or what have you--, and you choose wrong, how is it that God is responsible? If God knows you will do wrong without He Himself having to place you in a specific situation, yet He doesn't stop it, how is God therefore culpable?
When Christ told Peter he was going to deny Him, it was because Christ knew that Peter loved Jesus enough to NOT run away, but did not love Jesus enough to suffer the consequences of not running away. All Jesus is doing is clueing in Peter about his own disposition. That God orchestrated Peter's confrontations is not to have force Peter to deny Christ, but to show that it was ALREADY IN PETER'S HEART to do so. So, what God is really doing is simply allowing Peter to express the sin (of denying Christ) that's already taken root in Peter's heart. There is no "God caused Peter to do evil," because the evil was already there in Peter's heart.
The same thing is going on when Jesus confronts the rich young ruler with his real devotion (idolatry) to money; Jesus did not force the ruler to sin when he told the him to sell all that he had, knowing well that he wouldn't. Prophecy or no prophecy, Jesus placed the ruler into a position which Jesus knew the ruler would not concede and therefore commit the sin of coveting and idolatry (two of the ten commandments--pretty serious sins). The fact is, however, it was already in the ruler's heart to covet his money more than his God.
How about that little incident in I Kings 22 ...
Micaiah continued, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD : I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?' "One suggested this, and another that. Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'
" 'By what means?' the LORD asked.
" 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said.
" 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD . 'Go and do it.'
"So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."
Is God culpable for making people lie who are already sold out to serving man rather than God? I mean, it ain't just Peter that's an issue here in regard to considering God culpable for the wrong actions of another.
It goes on and on. It's not just with Peter. And I have to stand by what I said: God works in the context of fallen man and of sin. God doesn't sin and He doesn't make others sin. He doesn't tempt us, but He most certainly allows (and sometimes orchestrates) those circumstances which will allow the what's in the heart to become evident.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 11/3/2003 3:32 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Is God responsible for any PARTICULAR acts or episodes of moral evil that are generated by God’s compatibilistic exploitation activities? In other words, if person A knows that person B has a self-solidified character trait X, and A manipulates both person B and her environment such that B acts out character trait X, causing morally evil situation Y to result, is A morally culpable for the situation Y that results from B’s actions?
Good question, Meph. I don't think God would be necessarily culpable. It's basically a matter of (a) motives, (b) the overall moral landscape, and (c) authority.
With respect to (a) and (b), there is an important ethical principle called the "Principle of Double Effect". What the principle says is that an action that results in some evil can still be morally justified if (i) it is the optimum means to accomplish some greater good, and (ii) it is done for the sake of that greater good. It seems plausible to me to suppose that whenever God exploits the self-solidified characters of his creatures in a manner that results in something evil that these two conditions are fulfilled.
With respect to (c), I think God as the Creator has rights over his creatures that his creatures do not have over each other. While it would almost certainly be wrong for me to, say, direct a homicidal maniac into the path of a little child, I don't think it is necessarily wrong for God to do so. He gave us life, so he has the right to take, even if he does so through the instrumentality of an self-solidified agent. He also gave us freedom, so he has the right to limit or remove it as it suits his purposes.
Finally, it should be clear that a self-solidified agent retains his moral culpability even if God steers him into a situation in which that solidified character manifests itself in some evil.
A good Biblical case to look at here is that of Pharoah in the opening chapters of Genesis. A couple times it says that "Pharoah hardened his heart", and then it abruptly shifts and says several more times that "God hardened Pharoah's heart". Now it seems to me that Pharoah did the initial soldifying of his own character in opposition to Moses. At some point, God stepped in, locked Pharoah's heart (perhaps only temporarily) in the state that he had already chosen, and then used Pharoah for his sovereign purposes. Frankly, I don't see anything is this that undermines open theism or that exacerbates the problem of evil.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/3/2003 7:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan:
quote:
Good question, Meph. I don't think God would be necessarily culpable. It's basically a matter of (a) motives, (b) the overall moral landscape, and (c) authority.
Good stuff, Alan. We’ll take these in turn.
***************************
Alan (emphasis mine):
quote:
With respect to (a) and (b), there is an important ethical principle called the "Principle of Double Effect". What the principle says is that an action that results in some evil can still be morally justified if (i) it is the optimum means to accomplish some greater good, and (ii) it is done for the sake of that greater good. It seems plausible to me to suppose that whenever God exploits the self-solidified characters of his creatures in a manner that results in something evil that these two conditions are fulfilled.
With respect to (c), I think God as the Creator has rights over his creatures that his creatures do not have over each other. While it would almost certainly be wrong for me to, say, direct a homicidal maniac into the path of a little child, I don't think it is necessarily wrong for God to do so.He gave us life, so he has the right to take, even if he does so through the instrumentality of an self-solidified agent. He also gave us freedom, so he has the right to limit or remove it as it suits his purposes.
Given you’re a, b, and c thoughts, you’d make a great Calvinist.  Seriously. They would use the SAME argumentation that you use here. What you state brings to bear what I’ve said many times…and what Doc FINALLY admits to: open view theism boils down to being just another version of the “greater good” argument. Both Calvinism AND open view theism would justify the times when God ordains evil by saying it’s part of a greater good that we may OR MAY NOT be able to comprehend. The MAIN difference between open view theism and Calvinism then would be in how often this is the case. Whereas Calvinism would say that it takes place for EVERY instance of evil, open view theism would not. And this is what Doc doesn’t like. Because it leaves room for Calvinism theoretically. Think about it. Look at what JET says about God being able to use even partial solidification for God’s own purposes. Helseth would be right in that there would be a WHOLE BUNCH of stuff in human history that God would be able to control to God’s own ends. And it could theoretically be very well the case that 90-95% of ALL evil events happens just like the Peter thing. No one could philosophically argue otherwise, and it would functionally have the same effect as Calvinism. One could really argue that Zosia WAS a “greater good” thing by using you’re a, b, and c ideas. And Doc would NOT be liking that.
So, here’s what I say, Alan. I would say that any moral stance we take in using you’re a, b, and c for open view theism HAS to be taken when applied to Calvinism. If we are going to say that God is completely justified in authoring sin for greater good purposes, then let’s extend the logic to say that this is so even if ALL EVIL falls under this category!
**********************************
Alan:
quote:
Finally, it should be clear that a self-solidified agent retains his moral culpability even if God steers him into a situation in which that solidified character manifests itself in some evil.
Just like the pyromaniac remains responsible insofar as HE made HIMSELF a pyromanic, yes? Cool. But you would still say that I am SOMEWHAT responsible for the arson I orchestrated using the pyromaniac, right? Just like God would be SOMEWHAT morally responsible for orchestrating “lesser evils” for greater goods!
*******************************
Alan (emphasis mine):
quote:
A good Biblical case to look at here is that of Pharoah in the opening chapters of Genesis. A couple times it says that "Pharoah hardened his heart", and then it abruptly shifts and says several more times that "God hardened Pharoah's heart". Now it seems to me that Pharoah did the initial soldifying of his own character in opposition to Moses. At some point, God stepped in, locked Pharoah's heart (perhaps only temporarily) in the state that he had already chosen, and then used Pharoah for his sovereign purposes. Frankly, I don't see anything is this that undermines open theism or that exacerbates the problem of evil.
Let’s put it this way. If we take your thinking out, it may not UNDERMINE open view theism as a worldview, but it does dramatically DEPOWER it as a theodicy. Why? Because it effectively puts it on the SAME GROUND as Calvinism. There would be NO WAY that we could look at ANY evil act that occurs and say definitively that God wasn’t behind it. Not the Holocaust. Not Zosia. Not Sept. 11th. Nothing. And all that we would be able to go on is the “greater good” hope that in some MYSTERIOUS way, it really is morally justifiable, all things considered…which is JUST what a Calvinist would say.
Again, what this means is that any charge of wrongdoing that would be leveled at the Calvinist God would HAVE to be leveled at the Open View God too. Because BOTH concepts of God do the same essential things: use evil MEANS to achieve greater good ENDS.
***********************************
And we’d STILL have to deal with the fact that, if Doc’s idea of God’s self-covenant of non-interference is correct, that God DID INDEED break God’s own covenant when it came to Peter’s denial. Perhaps we should dispute Doc’s idea of that self-covenanting act…maybe?
Good stuff, Alan.
"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 11/3/2003 7:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman:
quote:
If God places you in a position where you must choose good or evil, right or wrong--it doesn't matter if it's via prophecy or what have you--, and you choose wrong, how is it that God is responsible? If God knows you will do wrong without He Himself having to place you in a specific situation, yet He doesn't stop it, how is God therefore culpable?
This is like me saying that if I drop of a known and solidified pedophile off in a playground full of children, knowing full well that the pedophile WILL try to sexually assault at least one of the children,…and I DON’T stop it, that I am NOT culpable for anything that happens. You’re best bet is to do what Alan does with his authority piece…(emphasis mine)
quote:
With respect to (c), I think God as the Creator has rights over his creatures that his creatures do not have over each other. While it would almost certainly be wrong for me to, say, direct a homicidal maniac into the path of a little child, I don't think it is necessarily wrong for God to do so. He gave us life, so he has the right to take, even if he does so through the instrumentality of an self-solidified agent. He also gave us freedom, so he has the right to limit or remove it as it suits his purposes.
Just say that because of God’s role as Creator, our sense of morality doesn’t necessary apply at all points to God, for certain reasons.
*******************************
Starkman:
quote:
Is God culpable for making people lie who are already sold out to serving man rather than God? I mean, it ain't just Peter that's an issue here in regard to considering God culpable for the wrong actions of another.
It goes on and on. It's not just with Peter.
Oh, I am VERY aware of this. Do we even need to mention God being behind Satan’s enticement of David to count the men…and then not only holding David morally responsible for that act…but PUNISHING not David, but David’s PEOPLE for David’s mistake! Oh, yes. It doesn’t just happen with Peter.
"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 | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 11/4/2003 10:36 AM (GMT -6) | | I only read most of your first post on this thread, Meph, but this totally reminds me of how God used Pharoah's hardened heart to keep heaping plagues on the Egyptians before they'd let the Israelites go.
Also, we see all over the Old Testament God using the pagan nations that surround the land of Israel to chastise and discipline them whenever they've strayed from God. Yet, afterwards, God always promises to punish those nations for doing those very things to Israel. That always struck me as unfair somehow. The only way I can really make sense of it, is to believe that those nations would have done those things at any point in time, but God was always holding them back, protecting Israel - much like a person holding a viscious dog by a leash to prevent it from attacking someone. At the times Israel needed to be disciplined, God simply let go the leash. But, how can He then punish the dog for doing what it did, when God let him do it? (I'm sorry. I guess I really didn't solve the problem after all.)
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
timlings
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130
| Posted 11/4/2003 11:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Tigress, I think you're onto something!
The snarling dog thing is good, although needs some work on it.
How about this for another example? If, in my heart, I'm holding onto something that God wants me to let go, if God doesn't actually ask me to surrender it, I'm not sinning. However, if God asks me to and I say no, then i sin. That sin was already in my heart before, but hadn't bourne fruit. Was it God's 'fault' that I then sinned when he asks me to surrender something i can't? Maybe yes, but also no.
God puts people in situations where he knows they'll sin sometimes, but that's to bring the hidden stuff into the open. I think that's a way of understanding Peter. By telling him that he would fail, and him subsequently failing, bought it into the open. Then it could be dealt with.
But Mephi...I don't think your original pyromaniac thing would be helpful. It gives the impression that God wants to make uses of our sin, rather that God can use us despite our sin.
Take Pharoah for example. I think God would have been pretty pleased to have Pharoah release his people first time round. Then Pharoah would have become a 'vessel unto honour'. But instead, God had to solidfy Pharoah's character in order to get his purposes accomplished anyway.
I'm just really uncomfortable by the way you're making God look in all this Mephi! You seem intent to make God look like an evil tyrant. That could just be my interpretation though
love
timlings | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 11/4/2003 1:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph: Calvinists would use the SAME argumentation that you use here. Both Calvinism AND open view theism would justify the times when God ordains evil by saying it’s part of a greater good that we may OR MAY NOT be able to comprehend. The MAIN difference between open view theism and Calvinism then would be in how often this is the case. Whereas Calvinism would say that it takes place for EVERY instance of evil, open view theism would not. ... Let’s put it this way. If we take your thinking out, it may not UNDERMINE open view theism as a worldview, but it does dramatically DEPOWER it as a theodicy. Why? Because it effectively puts it on the SAME GROUND as Calvinism. There would be NO WAY that we could look at ANY evil act that occurs and say definitively that God wasn’t behind it.
Alan: I don't have a problem with the similarilies of my argument to those used by Calvinists. I think the Calvinist theodicy has some merit as a partial justification of evil. But I still think that open theism fares significantly better than Calvinism in this respect precisely because we do not have to justify all evils in terms of some greater good, whereas Calvinists do. I think that makes the Calvinist theodicy significantly less plausible overall.
As far as Doc's proposed divine covenant of non-inference is concerned, I think it is basically correct, though I would condition it by saying that God will not override or remove creaturely freedom unless it is the optimum means of avoiding an evil that would be greater than the evil of lost freedom. In other words, God won't override our freedom unless he has sufficiently good reasons to do so. And it seems plausible to me that God might sometimes have sufficiently good reasons.
I like your challenging thoughts, Meph. Am curious to see what Doc's response will be.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
OMEGA
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 1
| Posted 11/5/2003 7:37 AM (GMT -6) | | God will hedge that person in so that the outcome will be
what God wants . He will use Angels to do good and Demons to
do evil or even an Ass .
For example :
(Num 22:22 KJV) "And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him."
(Num 22:23 KJV) "And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way."
(Num 22:24 KJV) "But the angel of the LORD stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side."
(Num 22:25 KJV) "And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam's foot against the wall: and he smote her again."
(Num 22:26 KJV) "And the angel of the LORD went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left."
(Num 22:27 KJV) "And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff."
(Num 22:28 KJV) "And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?"
(Num 22:29 KJV) "And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee."
(Num 22:30 KJV) "And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay."
(Num 22:31 KJV) "Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face."
(Num 22:32 KJV) "And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me:"
(Num 22:33 KJV) "And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive."
(Num 22:34 KJV) "And Balaam said unto the angel of the LORD, I have sinned; for I knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me: now therefore, if it displease thee, I will get me back again."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/12/2003 4:58 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 11/12/2003 7:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Okay okay ALRIGHT already. Been BUSY!!!
Now, be it known that I'm responding to Meph's first post, not to later ones, since I've been so FREAK'N BUSY I don't have time to read responses (will do so later, my apologies, tough weak). Also, be it known, I'm can't here offer my reflected, considered, thought-through opinion. This is off the cuff.
But, then again, this ain't the first time we've dealt with this issue.
First, regarding Helseth's proposed dilemma to me: When I say "Peter was soldified to the extent that...." I don't think its that opaque. He was solidified to the extent that it was certain he would deny Christ three times under such and such conditions. The fact that Christ predicted this proves it, as EVERYBODY grants. it does not mean that he was so solidified he was irreversibly a Christ denier. His return to Christ proves THAT. And there's NOTHING other than all-or-nothing categorical thinking to suggest that there's ANY inconsistency here. Peter was by his own choices and character development the type of person who WOULD deny Christ under such and such circumstances but would (or would likely?) repent under such and such circumstances.
God knew this scenario (from all eternity), saw that it would destroy Peter's false bravado, false views of leadership, and false messianic views to have him go through it (from all eternity), and form him to be the kind of leader he needed to be to be a foundational pillar of the church (from all eternity)... and so insured (if he had to) that three of the hundreds of people who could recognize him as an apprentice of Jesus questioned him, and insured (if he had to) that the rooster would crow.
Is God guilty of character solidification manipulation? Strange that a Calvinist would ask this! If God is "guilty" of this with Peter, what are we to think of rapists, or Hitler?
Be that as it may, the answer would be "yes" (assuming some element of divine intervention here). A man's sin shall find him out... the Bible says somewhere. Peter had a sinful heart, and God exposed it, FOR HIS OWN GOOD. Accuse him if you will, but this seems pretty loving. The sin is in Peter. God just brought it out.
This isn't like another human tempting a person to do something they ought not do. This is the Creator steering (perhaps) a person to not be duplicitious, but rather manifest their true character... for their own good, and the greater good of the kingdom.
So far as I can see, problems only arises if we
a) think God is behind all character solidification, or
b) believe that God steers people to do things that are against their good character (viz. commit evil) , or
c) universalize the intervention to the point where irrevocable freedom is compromised (viz. God completely overrides the repercussions of free acts).
Along these lines......
I honestly don't get the jump from
* God knowing four deeds four people will do and what one rooster always does in the next 12 hours to...
* God eternally knowing what every free agent will do throughout time.
A weeee bit of a leap there.
Now, if there were many other passages teaching the second point, well then, yes. All bets off. But I don't see this. What I DO see is many passages where God expresses regret, surprise, speaks and thinks of the future in subjunctive terms, changes his mind, experiences frustration and disappointment, etc... So, on balance, I think a character solidification reading of Peter is pretty sane.
Even IF this view were at all problematic (which I don't concede), the alternatives -- God predestined it,. or God saw it already as fact in the future -- strike me as FAR more problematic.
There's me take laddie.
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
| 61 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:41 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 |
|
|