Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Hilston
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103

Posted 2/25/2002 2:46 PM (GMT -6)

Greetings,

Please forgive me for asking questions that may already have been asked and addressed. (If that is the case, would someone please point me to the thread in which there are covered.) Here are the questions:

Are the non-fallen angels able to sin? If they are, then how do they keep themselves from sinning the way the demons did a few millennia ago?

Domo arigato,
Hilston
http://www.icubed.com/~hilston
hilston1@aol.com

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 2/25/2002 5:02 PM (GMT -6)

Hi, H.

I'm not trying to derail your thread here. I did notice that it has a buildup, and echos the same question posed to Dr. Boyd. You have a buildup, and it continues a line of thought. That said.....

I'm wondering two things.

I'm tempted to wonder whether the ongoing context just makes the sides too obvious for ANY heavenly beings that serve God to "turn." But (back to #1 of my questions), please post YOUR reason that you would give why WE turn! I'd say it is the body of death we carry. (Sin --> Death --> Sin --> Death -->) Spirital Beings don't bear that. I'd do my wondering (not speculating) from that part.

This is sobering: "...there is no middle road between God and Satan. Ultimately, and at any given moment, man is either with God or the devil, serving one or the other."

Someone else on this board has started posting long quotes (without citing sources--unless he's writing his own book); but here's oneLINK.

But I'm sure that you will get others too.

Hilston
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103

Posted 2/25/2002 5:44 PM (GMT -6)

Hi PoW,

You asked,

quote:
... please post YOUR reason that you would give why WE turn

We sin when we choose to obey the sin nature and not God. Of course, this is all meticulously foreordained by the Lord who meticulously governs the universe and providentially decreed our choices when He established His plan for the created order. I hope that clarifies where I'm coming from. I also hope my answer to your question does not sufficiently destroy my "chances" of getting an "Open View" answer to my question.

So now I again ask:
Are the non-fallen angels able to sin? If they are, then how do they keep themselves from sinning the way the demons did a few millennia ago?

Domo,
Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
http://www.icubed.com/~icubed

Edited by - Hilston on 02/25/2002 10:47:07 PM

alwyn
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 30

Posted 2/27/2002 12:33 AM (GMT -6)

Hello Hilston,

Are the non-fallen angels able to sin? If they are, then how do they keep themselves from sinning the way the demons did a few millennia ago?

I believe that the 'good' angels refrain from sin in a similar way to how God does i.e. their 'being' is so full of love and goodness that they almost perfectly are UNABLE to sin (or 'become' sinful).

Satan and the 1/3 also started out this way, but somewhere along the line they CORRUPTED THEMSELVES, every instance of their 'aiming' their hearts towards evil contributed them becoming worse...until finally (we really have no idea how long it was between Satan's creation and his fall) his evil become complete, WITHOUT hope of repentance.

so, i think the question is a good invitation to the personal aspect of sin, the 'quality of freedom' with respect to doing good, the balance between more power to do good and more severity/destruction when we do otherwise (compare the ANGELS' ability to fall with the consequences in the case that they do, with US), etc.

to wrap it up: how did the non-fallen angels keep from falling? answer: b'cos they held on to God all this while...their conviction and loyalty made more steadfast no doubt by the fall of Lucifer and the evil they witnessed resulting.

lots more to say and think about for sure....but that's my take for now (smile)...rgds, Al.

Hilston
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103

Posted 2/27/2002 5:31 AM (GMT -6)

Greetings Al,

Thanks for your reply. Please see my questions below:

Al writes:

quote:
I believe that the 'good' angels refrain from sin in a similar way to how God does i.e. their 'being' is so full of love and goodness that they almost perfectly are UNABLE to sin (or 'become' sinful).

Are you saying that the reason why Lucifer and his cohorts sinned is because they were unlucky enough not to have as much love and goodness in them? Below you say they corrupted themselves. But doesn't this suggest that they were predisposed to corruption because they did not have as much love and goodness in them to prevent their self-corruption?

Al writes:

quote:
Satan and the 1/3 also started out this way, but somewhere along the line they CORRUPTED THEMSELVES, ...

What kept the other angels from corrupting themselves? What keeps them from corrupting themselves now or at any point in history?

Al writes:

quote:
... [Satan's] evil [had] become complete, WITHOUT hope of repentance.

Are you saying that a demon is not free to repent if he wants to?

Al writes:

quote:
to wrap it up: how did the non-fallen angels keep from falling? answer: b'cos they held on to God all this while ...

So are you suggesting that they were able to fall for a period, but now they are no longer able to fall? Are they no longer free to sin if they want to?

Al writes:

quote:
their conviction and loyalty made more steadfast no doubt by the fall of Lucifer and the evil they witnessed resulting.

If witnessing the fall of Lucifer keeps the angels from committing sins, why does not our observance of the destructiveness of sin enable US to stop sinning?

Domo arigato,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
http://www.icubed.com/~hilston

Edited by - Hilston on 02/27/2002 10:33:01 AM

alwyn
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 30

Posted 2/28/2002 4:16 PM (GMT -6)

Hello James,

Thanks for your questions. I think we have markedly different views of what constitute personhood.

Al writes:

quote:
I believe that the 'good' angels refrain from sin in a similar way to how God does i.e. their 'being' is so full of love and goodness that they almost perfectly are UNABLE to sin (or 'become' sinful).

>Are you saying that the reason why Lucifer and his cohorts sinned is because they were >unlucky enough not to have as much love and goodness in them?

No. Angels, not unlike humans to some extent, choose their own characters over time in consideration of factors like:

a) God's instructions
b) What they choose to influence themselves with (an alcoholic who chooses to go to a bar will simply not have the same 'level' of freedom once he's in, etc.)
c) The kind of thoughts they like to 'experiment' with

>Below you say they corrupted themselves. But doesn't this suggest that they were >predisposed to corruption because they did not have as much love and goodness in them to >prevent their self-corruption?

Nope. You seem to be looking for something antecedent to their characters which 'determined' their self-corruption. But the entire notion of SELF suggests some kind of autonomous center of consciousness, a cause by itself - just think about OUR 'selves'...

>What kept the other angels from corrupting themselves? What keeps them from corrupting >themselves now or at any point in history?

Their perseverance, faithfulness, love, etc. all chosen and re-chosen and thereby 'solidified' into their characters...furthermore, with Lucifer's fall some kind of threshold in 'angelic freewill' was crossed; the very act of REJECTING Lucifer's rebellion would 'show up' in their hearts as more strength, more goodness.

>Are you saying that a demon is not free to repent if he wants to?

Yes...some kind of 'hardening' process...I'd also imagine that an angel, because it had so much POWER in the first place, would thereby have the potential to cause more EVIL. In a word, I suspect that for angels it's HARDER TO FALL but IMPOSSIBLE TO REPENT once fallen.

>So are you suggesting that they were able to fall for a period, but now they are no longer >able to fall? Are they no longer free to sin if they want to?

Something like this, yes. Although i wouldn't quite say that they are 'no longer free to sin', but the probability of them ever doing so (given the split between 'good' and 'bad' angels and their continuing and ever-increasing loyalty to God) is minimal.

>If witnessing the fall of Lucifer keeps the angels from committing sins, why does not our >observance of the destructiveness of sin enable US to stop sinning?

A coupla things:
a) We don't know what 'witnessing the fall of Lucifer' amounted to, the impact of this on the angelic heart
b) We are not angels(!!) and so are not bound the rules or the 'kind' of freedom God has set for angels.

Nevertheless, i think we can agree that witnessing sin in all its cruelty and perversion does provide, at least for some, a deterrent of sorts.

Furthermore, seeing Satan's fall is only ONE factor impacting the angels'...but i dare not underestimate the nature of such 'pre-Creation' phenomena...

Most importantly, I think we need to study more about the 'More Power = More Potential for Evil" concept...for angels it's a 'once fallen, always fallen' thing (no salvation for them), the flip-side of a heavenly being's heighteneed capacity (compared to humans) to worship/serve God.

Here's a quote from Glenn Miller of the Christian Thinktank (http://www.webcom.com/~ctt):

"God created a perfect universe with personal agents with the ability to create derivative universes in an analogical fashion to God's--via cognitively-structured choice. One of the more intelligent of the agents chose to create an alternative universe NOT structured after the balanced and dynamic patterns within God.

"In so choosing, this intelligence 're-fashioned' itself into a being with one foot in reality (as God created it) and one foot in 'un-reality' (a conceptual universe in the mind of Satan)...as such, this agent's choice interacts with its rationality in unpredictable ('un-real') ways, making the choices of this being bizarre.

"This high-intelligence and high-volition, being closest to the un-reality, was HIMSELF the most distorted by the anti-forces and anti-rationality in the un-reality. As such, what was love became hatred; what was loyalty became revolt; what was reasonableness became unthinking malice.

"From this being, through his influence with others--similarly endowed with reasons and choice--dissonant forces and conceptual structures became parasitically attached to 'good' reality. These destructive (anti-reality and anti-harmony and anti-balance) ripples affected his character, power, future. In the blind rage to strike back at his maker, this deceiver, this 'murderer from the beginning', this 'father of lies' began a campaign to do as much vindictive damage as possible against his Creator. Attacks upon the universe, humanity, the Jews, the church, the Son of God, the very image of God, rationality, etc...became the modus operandi of this being...And one goal of the one who wanted to be God, is to convince us less-intellectually-endowed mortals that the Devil is God, and that God is the Devil. That's as close as he will ever get to being God--in convincing us that God is a devil Himself."

Let me know what u think...u may also want to read up Geisler's chapter in 'Predestination & Freedom: 4 Views', i think he did a marvelous job in explaining how it doesn't make much sense to ask what 'caused' the Self to act...or try Dr.Boyd's Satan/Evil[, the opening chapters on 'choosing love' and causation in the context of personal choices are among the most insightful published.

blessings,
Al
p.s.: May i know your own views on why/how Lucifer fell, why Gabriel didn't, etc.?

Hilston
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103

Posted 2/28/2002 6:52 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Al,
Thanks for your reply and the fascinating excerpt.

Al writes:

quote:
Angels, not unlike humans to some extent, choose their own characters over time ...

Please provide the references you use to establish this view.

Al writes:

quote:
... the entire notion of SELF suggests some kind of autonomous center of consciousness, a cause by itself - just think about OUR 'selves'

Where do you get a definition of self that necessarily includes autonomy? I will grant that we are each individually sentient, but autonomy is not a requirement to being sentient. Perhaps we need to define autonomy. The word basically means "self governing." In apologetic circles it refers to man's ability to reason apart from God. In soteriological discussion, it may refer to the idea of libertarian freedom of volition, a concept I deny. We are compatibilistically free, but not autonomous in the libertarian sense.

Question:Do you believe the angels love God genuinely?

Al writes:

quote:
...furthermore, with Lucifer's fall some kind of threshold in 'angelic freewill' was crossed; the very act of REJECTING Lucifer's rebellion would 'show up' in their hearts as more strength, more goodness.

What are the references you use to establish this idea?

Al writes:

quote:
... I suspect that for angels it's HARDER TO FALL but IMPOSSIBLE TO REPENT once fallen.

So demons do not have free will, right?

I had asked: So are you suggesting that they were able to fall for a period, but now they are no longer >able to fall? Are they no longer free to sin if they want to?

Al replied:

quote:
Something like this, yes. Although i wouldn't quite say that they are 'no longer free to sin', but the probability of them ever doing so (given the split between 'good' and 'bad' angels and their continuing and ever-increasing loyalty to God) is minimal.

Do you believe that God could have created us similarly? Why do we sin so much, yet the angels don't sin at all, yet they genuinely love God, right?

I had asked: If witnessing the fall of Lucifer keeps the angels from committing sins, why does not our >observance of the destructiveness of sin enable US to stop sinning?

Al replied:

quote:
a) We don't know what 'witnessing the fall of Lucifer' amounted to, the impact of this on the angelic heart

But your claim is that it had an effect. Why couldn't we enjoy the same kind of effect in our experience? Why do we continue to sin?

Al writes:

quote:
b) We are not angels(!!) and so are not bound the rules or the 'kind' of freedom God has set for angels.

But Open View proponents argue that *genuine* love requires freedom and that freedom means sin will exist. Why do the angels get to enjoy a sinless existence yet we humans have to struggle with sin?

Al writes:

quote:
... for angels it's a 'once fallen, always fallen' thing (no salvation for them), the flip-side of a heavenly being's heighteneed capacity (compared to humans) to worship/serve God.

So you're admitting the logical coherence of a created being loving and worshipping God genuinely but no longer having to struggle with sin (as in the case of angels). Couldn't God have created us similarly?

Al writes:

quote:
May i know your own views on why/how Lucifer fell, why Gabriel didn't, etc.?

Sure. Lucifer and the 1/3 fell as it was meticulously decreed by God that they would. Gabriel did not, along with the 2/3 because it was meticulously decreed that they would not.

Oyasuminasai,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
http://www.icubed.com/~hilston

still_unsure
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 54

Posted 3/1/2002 1:49 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Hilston:

Don't mean to butt into your discussion but I just wanted you to clarify a couple of things.

You wrote:

"Where do you get a definition of self that necessarily includes autonomy? I will grant that we are each individually sentient, but autonomy is not a requirement to being sentient. Perhaps we need to define autonomy. The word basically means "self governing." In apologetic circles it refers to man's ability to reason apart from God. In soteriological discussion, it may refer to the idea of libertarian freedom of volition, a concept I deny. We are compatibilistically free, but not autonomous in the libertarian sense."

Could you give a useful analogy of compatibalistic freedom that extricates God from being the author of evil? I don't think it's possible.

Again, you wrote:

"Lucifer and the 1/3 fell as it was meticulously decreed by God that they would. Gabriel did not, along with the 2/3 because it was meticulously decreed that they would not."

So, is God the author of evil?
Given the little that the Bible reveals of Satan's fall or even Angels, isn't your original question bound to be answered by mere speculation? Aren't such topics beyond positive knowledge?

Blessings,
Rob

Hilston
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103

Posted 3/1/2002 2:31 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Rob,

Thanks for writing. No need to apologize for "butting in." I welcome as much input as possible.

Rob writes:

quote:
Could you give a useful analogy of compatibalistic freedom that extricates God from being the author of evil? I don't think it's possible.

I will do my best to explain my view, but first I need to understand your question. What do you mean by "author of evil"? Please define "author."

Rob writes:

quote:
Given the little that the Bible reveals of Satan's fall or even Angels, isn't your original question bound to be answered by mere speculation? Aren't such topics beyond positive knowledge?

The aim of my question is not so much to secure a positive biblical answer where one is not to be found. Rather, it serves the purpose of drawing out the ideas of others regarding libertarian free will, circumstantial and environmental influences upon so-called free decisions, as well as providing insights into the various notions of God's immanence in our daily experience and mundane existence.

Thanks again for writing. I look forward to your reply.

Domo,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
http://www.icubed.com/~hilston

Edited by - hilston on 03/01/2002 7:31:58 PM

still_unsure
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 54

Posted 3/2/2002 1:10 AM (GMT -6)

Hi James:

By asking if "God is the author of evil" I mean is the existence of evil ultimately attributable to God? My understanding of compatibalism may be incorrect, but does it not simply "extend" God's puppet strings?
I know compatibalists feel their view removes moral culpability from God and places it in man's will, but I know of no analogy regarding compatibalism that effectively demonstrates this. Even this board's own resident (former?) compatibalist insists that to be consistent, compatibalists must give up on an Omnibenevolent God and embrace one which is morally ambiguous. Please show me how I, if I were capable, could create beings in a compatibalist sense, who's evil actions did not ultimately implicate me? In reality, isn't the term "compatibalistic freedom" an oxymoron? I look forward to hearing about your view.

God bless,
Rob

Hilston
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103

Posted 3/2/2002 5:28 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Rob,

Thanks for writing back. My responses and questions are inline below:

Rob asks:

quote:
By asking if "God is the author of evil" I mean is the existence of evil ultimately attributable to God?

If nothing but God existed before God created the heavens and the earth, how is NOT everything ultimately attributable to God? If some hypothetical objective outsider were to come along and say, "Who made this mess? (referring to the earth and all that is in it)", the answer is: God. He is ultimately attributable to all that exists and the state that it's in. To say, "Well, God made it, but He's not ultimately attributable to what's in it" is not logical and ducks the issue. (I should add, however, that Biblically speaking, God's creation is NOT a mess and evil exists in perfect accordance with God's design.)

Rob writes:

quote:
My understanding of compatibalism may be incorrect, but does it not simply "extend" God's puppet strings?

That assumes that God is merely some kind of puppet master. He's much more than that. God doesn't merely pull strings. He holds the very fiber and substance of a person together. He works within the very glands and synapses as they function within a person. In the physical sphere, He holds the very atoms together that make up the molecules and compounds that form the tissue and fiber of our physical selves. In the spiritual sphere, He is no less immanent.

Rob writes:

quote:
I know compatibalists feel their view removes moral culpability from God and places it in man's will, but I know of no analogy regarding compatibalism that effectively demonstrates this.

You're right, and that's how it should be. It ought to inspire fear and reverence. There are no adequate analogies to compatibilism because there is no adequate analogy to God with respect to culpability. That is to say that any analogical illustration one attempts to devise will invariably depict a being or scenario that is less than God, therefore allowing the notion of culpability/responsibility to become a major distraction. The words "culpability" and "responsibility" imply the existence of a superior authority to which one must answer. God has no superiors and therefore He does what He wants, when He wants, to whom He wants, for whatever reason He wants. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth (Ro 9:18). God is NOT culpable for anything He does. He is not responsible (i.e. He does not answer to anyone). This is what Paul understood and conveyed to the saints in Rome when he rhetorically asked: "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" (Ro 9:19ff). What was Paul's reply to that seemingly legitimate question? "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" God answers to no one, and is therefore truly free.

Rob writes:

quote:
Even this board's own resident (former?) compatibalist insists that to be consistent, compatibalists must give up on an Omnibenevolent God and embrace one which is morally ambiguous.

That is a misguided statement and betrays a lack of reverence. God defines benevolence. He is not subject to our conception of it. God defines morality. He is not subject to our conception of it. The phrase "moral ambiguity" is similar in concept to "probability." They both describe our ignorance of causal relationships. Even the most heinous events bring about God's plan. This is good and moral. Who are we to say otherwise? Strong medicine seems wrong and evil to a child. But the child must trust that his loving mother and father are administering the medicine for the child's good.

Rob writes:

quote:
Please show me how I, if I were capable, could create beings in a compatibalist sense, who's evil actions did not ultimately implicate me?

Here's how: If you were God, not answerable to anyone, all-powerful and all-wise, You could create beings that would make choices and do evil all according to Your plan and for the ultimate good that You intend for Your creation. You would necessarily involve yourself in every meticulous detail of that creation and enjoy blessing those beings and receiving the love and worship of the beings who believed in You and sought to glorify You.

Rob writes:

quote:
In reality, isn't the term "compatibalistic freedom" an oxymoron?

Not at all. It is a logically necessary term, one that Biblical writers and players understood. "Individual libertarian freedom" is actually the real oxymoron in this controversy because no one is truly (libertarianly) free but God Himself. All other sentient beings are constrained by the warp and woof of their environment, circumstances, physiological conditions, emotional state, preferences, mood, etc. This is hardly freedom. Humans, especially those of us who live in western culture (including Canada :) ), mistake the lack of friction for freedom. We cannot not do what we want. Even when we are compelled to do something that we don't like, we do it willingly because compliance is preferred over the consequences of noncompliance.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and questions.

Hai dozo,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
http://www.icubed.com/~hilston

Edited by - Hilston on 03/02/2002 10:36:01 AM

alwyn
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 30

Posted 3/6/2002 7:21 PM (GMT -6)

Hi James,

i'm giving a shot at some of your questions...can't help but wonder if you applied to same kind of scrutiny you've given to my posts back to your theory, :)

anyway, here goes:

>Al writes:

quote:
Angels, not unlike humans to some extent, choose their own characters over time ...Please provide the >references you use to establish this view.

Actually i also figured it's quite self-evident. If I keep choosing hate, bitterness, envy all my life, will i not eventually become hateful, bitter, envious, etc.?

May I know why you (i assume) object to this?

Sorry, can't think of any references for this exact principle. Care to challenge it? Or maybe give contra-references? (smile)

>Al writes: [quote]... the entire notion of SELF suggests some kind of autonomous center of consciousness, a cause by itself >- just think about OUR 'selves' Where do you get a definition of self that necessarily includes autonomy? I will grant that >we are each individually sentient, but autonomy is not a requirement to being sentient. Perhaps we need to define autonomy. >The word basically means "self governing." In apologetic circles it refers to man's ability to reason apart from God. In >soteriological discussion, it may refer to the idea of libertarian freedom of volition, a concept I deny. We are >compatibilistically free, but not autonomous in the libertarian sense.

I think the libertarian/non-libertarian debate cannot be entered into here. I merely hope to make a theory of angelic freedom coherent within the context of libertarian freedom.

Question:Do you believe the angels love God genuinely?

Yes.

>Al writes: [quote]...furthermore, with Lucifer's fall some kind of threshold in 'angelic freewill' was crossed; the very act >of REJECTING Lucifer's rebellion would 'show up' in their hearts as more strength, more goodness. What are the >references you use to establish this idea?

I don't have any references. I don't, however, believe there is anything in Scripture which contradicts this. In fact, I'd think the Bible supports it, as it does 'libertarian' freedom in general...

I'd also like to note that much of what we say about angels are going to be deductions from previously held axioms and part-conjectures. We need to find a way of making sense of the fact that:

a) Before creation, some angels fell and some didn't.
b) The demons seems to 'rebelling' against God. But they will lose, and are not given salvific opportunity.
c) The angels (non-fallen) are not said to be sin-able

Yes i suppose some, like you, would say that God 'ordained meticulously' that the demons fell, are causing havoc on earth, and will fight Him in the end. But of course I beg to differ. Hence my theories, :)

>Al writes: [quote]... I suspect that for angels it's HARDER TO FALL but IMPOSSIBLE TO REPENT once fallen.So demons do not >have free will, right?

I believe the effects of their sin are so great, they have cut themselves off from repentance. They HAD the freedom to choose good or bad, but given the kind of power they had, the evil they chose corrupted them beyond recovery. more power = more power to do evil = more damage with the abuse of the power...

>I had asked: So are you suggesting that they were able to fall for a period, but now they are no longer able to fall?

Yup. They'd no longer want to; too much goodness in them now for that.

>Are they no longer free to sin if they want to?

I don't think they'd want to. I suspect that the gift of sinlessness is a reward for DESIRING and PERSEVERING WITH love and goodness in the first place, not unlike our 'final' salvation. Revelations has some good passages on this (the saints are rewarded because they loved God unto death, wouldn't apostasize, etc.).

more power = more power to love = more love with the proper use of the power until character is 'solidified'...

>Al replied: [quote]Something like this, yes. Although i wouldn't quite say that they are 'no longer free to sin', but the >probability of them ever doing so (given the split between 'good' and 'bad' angels and their continuing and ever-increasing >loyalty to God) is minimal. Do you believe that God could have created us similarly? Why do we sin so much, yet the >angels >don't sin at all, yet they genuinely love God, right?

Remember that the angelic 'non-sin' came only after the Fall (according to my pet-theory); non-ability to sin was the result of deciding AGAINST Lucifer. Love - in a 'contingent being' - increases with more acts of love (agree?) to the point where it becomes 'part' of us.

Could God create us with the POWER and POTENTIAL of angels? Are you suggesting that maybe He should've created Man exactly like angels?

I had asked: If witnessing the fall of Lucifer keeps the angels from committing sins, why does not our >observance of the destructiveness of sin enable US to stop sinning?

Al replied:[quote]a) We don't know what 'witnessing the fall of Lucifer' amounted to, the impact of this on the angelic heart

But your claim is that it had an effect. Why couldn't we enjoy the same kind of effect in our experience? Why do we continue to sin?

I think we DO enjoy the same 'kind' of effect - it's the degree to which it effects us. Remember that the angels are MORE POWERFUL VOLITIONAL beings.

Again, remember that we were born sinful (this 'body of death' still binds us somewhat), Lucifer's fall obviously didnt' affect the angels the way Adam's fall did us, Jesus didn't die for the angels (i.e. there are no 'second chances' for them - the flipside of them being given so much power and ability to love/serve God in the first place).

>Open View proponents argue that *genuine* love requires freedom and that freedom means sin will exist. Why do the angels get >to enjoy a sinless existence yet we humans have to struggle with sin?

The potential of a sinless existence comes hand in hand with the potential to become a FALLEN angel...the issue is NOT whether angels can sin - demons are proof of this!

Al writes: [quote]... for angels it's a 'once fallen, always fallen' thing (no salvation for them), the flip-side of a heavenly being's heighteneed capacity (compared to humans) to worship/serve God. So you're admitting the logical coherence of a created being loving and worshipping God genuinely but no longer having to struggle with sin (as in the case of angels). Couldn't God have created us similarly?

Nope, as per above. The angels had to survive the fall of the 1/3 (so really the 'struggle with sin' will go on regardless) - and why can't God decide to create a non-angelic race with less power (volitional as well as 'cosmic') but for which He would give His Son for in the event things went wrong?

>Lucifer and the 1/3 fell as it was meticulously decreed by God that they would. Gabriel did not, along with the 2/3 because >it was meticulously decreed that they would not.

Why didn't God decree that nobody (angels or Man) fell?

Regards,
Al

alwyn
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 30

Posted 3/6/2002 7:26 PM (GMT -6)

i apologise for the really messy posting...will try to do better next time...

rgds,
Al

Hilston
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103

Posted 3/6/2002 7:50 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Al,

Thanks for replying. I am eager to respond, but the format of your post is difficult to follow. Would you care to edit it and put "Hilston writes" in front of my sentences and "Alwyn writes" in front of yours? That would help out a lot. In the meantime, I will work on my response.

Domo,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
http://www.icubed.com/~hilston

alwyn
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 30

Posted 3/6/2002 8:04 PM (GMT -6)

ok...have made it (hopefully!) less distracting...rgds, Al.

Hilston:
Angels, not unlike humans to some extent, choose their own characters over time ...Please provide the references you use to establish this view.

AL:
Actually i also figured it's quite self-evident. If I keep choosing hate, bitterness, envy all my life, will i not eventually become hateful, bitter, envious, etc.?

May I know why you (i assume) object to this?

Sorry, can't think of any references for this exact principle. Care to challenge it? Or maybe contra-references? (smile)

Hilston:
Al writes:... the entire notion of SELF suggests some kind of autonomous center of consciousness, a cause by itself - just think about OUR 'selves' Where do you get a definition of self that necessarily includes autonomy? I will grant that >we are each individually sentient, but autonomy is not a requirement to being sentient. Perhaps we need to define autonomy. The word basically means "self governing." In apologetic circles it refers to man's ability to reason apart from God. In soteriological discussion, it may refer to the idea of libertarian freedom of volition, a concept I deny. We are compatibilistically free, but not autonomous in the libertarian sense.

AL:
I think the libertarian/non-libertarian debate cannot be entered into here. I merely hope to make a theory of angelic freedom coherent within the context of libertarian freedom.

Hilston:
Question:Do you believe the angels love God genuinely?

AL: Yes.

Hilston:
Al writes: furthermore, with Lucifer's fall some kind of threshold in 'angelic freewill' was crossed; the very act of REJECTING Lucifer's rebellion would 'show up' in their hearts as more strength, more goodness. What are the references you use to establish this idea?

AL:
I don't have any references. I don't, however, believe there is anything in Scripture which contradicts this. In fact, I'd think the Bible supports it, as it does 'libertarian' freedom in general...

I'd also like to note that much of what we say about angels are going to be deductions from previously held axioms and part-conjectures. We need to find a way of making sense of the fact that:

a) Before creation, some angels fell and some didn't.
b) The demons seems to 'rebelling' against God. But they will lose, and are not given salvific opportunity.
c) The angels (non-fallen) are not said to be sin-able

Yes i suppose some, like you, would say that God 'ordained meticulously' that the demons fell, are causing havoc on earth, and will fight Him in the end. But of course I beg to differ. Hence my theories, :)

Hilston:
Al writes: I suspect that for angels it's HARDER TO FALL but IMPOSSIBLE TO REPENT once fallen.So demons do not have free will, right?

AL:
I believe the effects of their sin are so great, they have cut themselves off from repentance. They HAD the freedom to choose good or bad, but given the kind of power they had, the evil they chose corrupted them beyond recovery. more power = more power to do evil = more damage with the abuse of the power...

Hilston:
I had asked: So are you suggesting that they were able to fall for a period, but now they are no longer able to fall?

AL: Yup. They'd no longer want to; too much goodness in them now for that.

Hilston:
Are they no longer free to sin if they want to?

AL:
I don't think they'd want to. I suspect that the gift of sinlessness is a reward for DESIRING and PERSEVERING WITH love and goodness in the first place, not unlike our 'final' salvation. Revelations has some good passages on this (the saints are rewarded because they loved God unto death, wouldn't apostasize, etc.).

more power = more power to love = more love with the proper use of the power until character is 'solidified'...

Hilston:
Al replied: Something like this, yes. Although i wouldn't quite say that they are 'no longer free to sin', but the probability of them ever doing so (given the split between 'good' and 'bad' angels and their continuing and ever-increasing loyalty to God) is minimal. Do you believe that God could have created us similarly? Why do we sin so much, yet the angels don't sin at all, yet they genuinely love God, right?

AL:
Remember that the angelic 'non-sin' came only after the Fall (according to my pet-theory); non-ability to sin was the result of deciding AGAINST Lucifer. Love - in a 'contingent being' - increases with more acts of love (agree?) to the point where it becomes 'part' of us.

Could God create us with the POWER and POTENTIAL of angels? Are you suggesting that maybe He should've created Man exactly like angels?

Hilston:
I had asked: If witnessing the fall of Lucifer keeps the angels from committing sins, why does not our observance of the destructiveness of sin enable US to stop sinning?

We don't know what 'witnessing the fall of Lucifer' amounted to, the impact of this on the angelic heart. But your claim is that it had an effect. Why couldn't we enjoy the same kind of effect in our experience? Why do we continue to sin?

AL:
I think we DO enjoy the same 'kind' of effect - it's the degree to which it effects us. Remember that the angels are MORE POWERFUL VOLITIONAL beings.

Again, remember that we were born sinful (this 'body of death' still binds us somewhat), Lucifer's fall obviously didnt' affect the angels the way Adam's fall did us, Jesus didn't die for the angels (i.e. there are no 'second chances' for them - the flipside of them being given so much power and ability to love/serve God in the first place).

Hilston:
Open View proponents argue that *genuine* love requires freedom and that freedom means sin will exist. Why do the angels get to enjoy a sinless existence yet we humans have to struggle with sin?

AL:
The potential of a sinless existence comes hand in hand with the potential to become a FALLEN angel...the issue is NOT whether angels can sin - demons are proof of this!

Hilston:
Al writes:... for angels it's a 'once fallen, always fallen' thing (no salvation for them), the flip-side of a heavenly being's heighteneed capacity (compared to humans) to worship/serve God. So you're admitting the logical coherence of a created being loving and worshipping God genuinely but no longer having to struggle with sin (as in the case of angels). Couldn't God have created us similarly?

AL:
Nope, as per above. The angels had to survive the fall of the 1/3 (so really the 'struggle with sin' will go on regardless) - and why can't God decide to create a non-angelic race with less power (volitional as well as 'cosmic') but for which He would give His Son for in the event things went wrong?

Hilston:
Lucifer and the 1/3 fell as it was meticulously decreed by God that they would. Gabriel did not, along with the 2/3 because it was meticulously decreed that they would not.

AL: Why didn't God decree that nobody (angels or Man) fell?

Regards,
Al

alwyn
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 30

Posted 3/10/2002 7:44 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Hilston,

I've posted two pieces which hopefully sheds more light on my position. You'll probably be more interested in the first one, as the second is a repeat of what I've been writing so far.

http://www.angelfire.com/journal/althehare/heavenfree.html

http://www.angelfire.com/journal/althehare/angelfree.html

Rgds,
Al

Hilston
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103

Posted 3/10/2002 9:05 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Al,

Thanks for the continued discussion. My replies are below:

Al had written: Angels, not unlike humans to some extent, choose their own characters over time.

Hilston requested: Please provide the references you use to establish this view.

Al replies:

quote:
Actually i also figured it's quite self-evident. If I keep choosing hate, bitterness, envy all my life, will i not eventually become hateful, bitter, envious, etc.?

Are you saying that an old person who has lived a life of hate, bitterness and envy is beyond the reach of God to save him?

Al writes:

quote:
May I know why you (i assume) object to this?

Because the presupposition of Freewill theism/Open Theism is that love is not truly genuine unless there is a capacity to hate. Your suggestion results in angels who do not love God as much as they did when they could have chosen otherwise. Greg Boyd tries to get around this by saying that such a view only requires that the creatures started out with that capacity (and I elaborate on that more fully in my next post to Greg). The problem with that explanation is that it results in an incoherent concept of love within the Triune Godhead. There is no better or more perfect example of love as that which is revealed within the Godhead. The Father's love for the Son is the ultimate model (Jn 3:35 5:20 10:17 14:31 15:19 17:24). Are you or Mr. Boyd willing to say that the Father started out with the capacity to hate to Son?

Hilston had asked: Question:Do you believe the angels love God genuinely?

Al replies:

quote:
Yes.

Please elaborate in light of my preceding paragraph.

Al had written: ... furthermore, with Lucifer's fall some kind of threshold in 'angelic freewill' was crossed; the very act of REJECTING Lucifer's rebellion would 'show up' in their hearts as more strength, more goodness.

Hilston then asked:What are the references you use to establish this idea?

Al replies:

quote:
I don't have any references. I don't, however, believe there is anything in Scripture which contradicts this.

That's quite a lot to hang on an argument from silence.

Al writes:

quote:
In fact, I'd think the Bible supports it, as it does 'libertarian' freedom in general ...

It does? Where?

Al writes:

quote:
I'd also like to note that much of what we say about angels are going to be deductions from previously held axioms and part-conjectures.

Exactly. That is why we need to discuss the coherency of the presuppositions that underpin those conclusions.

Al writes:

quote:
We need to find a way of making sense of the fact that:
a) Before creation, some angels fell and some didn't.
b) The demons seems to 'rebelling' against God. But they will lose, and are not given salvific opportunity.
c) The angels (non-fallen) are not said to be sin-able

Yes i suppose some, like you, would say that God 'ordained meticulously' that the demons fell, are causing havoc on earth, and will fight Him in the end. But of course I beg to differ. Hence my theories, :)

Your theories are rooted in your presuppositions. The purpose for my questions is to eventually, once I have a firm grasp of them, make a cogent critique of the Open Theist presuppositions that lead to these theories.

Al had written: I suspect that for angels it's HARDER TO FALL but IMPOSSIBLE TO REPENT once fallen.

Hilston then asked: So demons do not have free will, right?

Al replies:

quote:
I believe the effects of their sin are so great, they have cut themselves off from repentance. They HAD the freedom to choose good or bad, but given the kind of power they had, the evil they chose corrupted them beyond recovery. more power = more power to do evil = more damage with the abuse of the power ...

If truly genuine love requires the capacity to choose to hate, doesn't it logically follow that evil demons who are beyond the capacity to choose to do good actually are not as evil as they used to be?

Hilston had asked: So are you suggesting that they were able to fall for a period, but now they are no longer able to fall?

Al replied: Yup. They'd no longer want to; too much goodness in them now for that.

Hilston then asked: Are they no longer free to sin if they want to?

Al replies:

quote:
I don't think they'd want to. I suspect that the gift of sinlessness is a reward ...

Wait a second! Sinlessness can be GIVEN? Isn't God doing all He can to prevent evil? If so, then why doesn't he give saved people this Sinlessness Gift?

Al continues:

quote:
... for DESIRING and PERSEVERING WITH love and goodness in the first place, not unlike our 'final' salvation. Revelations has some good passages on this (the saints are rewarded because they loved God unto death, wouldn't apostasize, etc.).

Are you saying that the Gift of Sinlessness is the reward? How then do we make sense of some people suffering loss of reward in heaven and that some are rewarded more than others? Sinlessness is an either/or proposition.

Al had written: Although i wouldn't quite say that they are 'no longer free to sin', but the probability of them ever doing so (given the split between 'good' and 'bad' angels and their continuing and ever-increasing loyalty to God) is minimal.

Hilston asked: Do you believe that God could have created us similarly? Why do we sin so much, yet the angels don't sin at all, yet they genuinely love God, right?

Al replies:

quote:
Remember that the angelic 'non-sin' came only after the Fall (according to my pet-theory); non-ability to sin was the result of deciding AGAINST Lucifer. Love - in a 'contingent being' - increases with more acts of love (agree?) to the point where it becomes 'part' of us.

We are urged to grow in love and unity, etc., but it is God who give such increase among the saints. My complaint regards the presupposition that "truly genuine love" or "truly genuine obedience" necessarily includes the capacity to choose to the contrary.

Al writes:

quote:
Could God create us with the POWER and POTENTIAL of angels? Are you suggesting that maybe He should've created Man exactly like angels?

On my worldview, no. God has done everything perfectly according to His own wisdom, counsel, and decrees. But on your worldview, why wouldn't a God who does everything He can to promote good and to crush evil give something to man that he has apparently given to angels?

Hilston had asked: If witnessing the fall of Lucifer keeps the angels from committing sins, why does not our observance of the destructiveness of sin enable US to stop sinning?

Al replied: We don't know what 'witnessing the fall of Lucifer' amounted to, the impact of this on the angelic heart.

Hilston then asked: But your claim is that it had an effect. Why couldn't we enjoy the same kind of effect in our experience? Why do we continue to sin?

Al replies:

quote:
I think we DO enjoy the same 'kind' of effect - it's the degree to which it effects us. Remember that the angels are MORE POWERFUL VOLITIONAL beings.

But if God is doing everything in His power to promulgate good and to abate evil, why would He not devise in such a way as to have a similar effect on us?

Al writes:

quote:
Again, remember that we were born sinful (this 'body of death' still binds us somewhat), Lucifer's fall obviously didnt' affect the angels the way Adam's fall did us, ...

Ack! Of course! Lucifer did not pass off his fallen nature to the rest of the angels as offspring the way Adam did with the human race. This is totally off the wall.

Al writes:

quote:
Jesus didn't die for the angels (i.e. there are no 'second chances' for them - the flipside of them being given so much power and ability to love/serve God in the first place).

OK, just so I understand: Are you suggesting that, since they were given so much to begin with and rejected it, God is especially harsh with them and gives them no second chances? And the corollary point would be: Whereas we humans did not reject as much as they, so we are given a second chance? Is that your position on angelic redemption?

Hilston had asked: Open View proponents argue that *genuine* love requires freedom and that freedom means sin will exist. Why do the angels get to enjoy a sinless existence yet we humans have to struggle with sin?

Al writes:

quote:
The potential of a sinless existence comes hand in hand with the potential to become a FALLEN angel...the issue is NOT whether angels can sin - demons are proof of this!

Do not we humans have the potential of a sinless existence in heaven with God? It has nothing to do with our potential to become a fallen angel. Please explain your point.

Al had written: ... for angels it's a 'once fallen, always fallen' thing (no salvation for them), the flip-side of a heavenly being's heighteneed capacity (compared to humans) to worship/serve God.

Hilston then asked: So you're admitting the logical coherence of a created being loving and worshipping God genuinely but no longer having to struggle with sin (as in the case of angels). Couldn't God have created us similarly?

Al replies:

quote:
Nope, as per above. The angels had to survive the fall of the 1/3 (so really the 'struggle with sin' will go on regardless) - and why can't God decide to create a non-angelic race with less power (volitional as well as 'cosmic') but for which He would give His Son for in the event things went wrong?

Um, what?

Hilston wrote: Lucifer and the 1/3 fell as it was meticulously decreed by God that they would. Gabriel did not, along with the 2/3 because it was meticulously decreed that they would not.

Al writes:

quote:
Why didn't God decree that nobody (angels or Man) fell?

He didn't want to. But that's not a problem on my worldview because I'm not going around attributing characteristics and/or limitations to God and man that require any defense along those lines.

Oyasumi nasai,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
http://www.icubed.com/~hilston

Edited by - Hilston on 03/11/2002 02:09:05 AM

alwyn
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 30

Posted 3/11/2002 3:12 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Hilston, let's carry on and see how far we go, alright? (smile)

H: Are you saying that an old person who has lived a life of hate, bitterness and envy is beyond the reach of God to save him?

Nope, I'm saying that the man will have more and more hate, bitterness and envy in his heart as a result of choosing these things consistently.

H: Because the presupposition of Freewill theism/Open Theism is that love is not truly genuine unless there is a capacity to hate. Your suggestion results in angels who do not love God as much as they did when they could have chosen otherwise.

I think you misrepresent me when u talk about angels "who do not love God as much as they did when they could have chosen otherwise". The non-fallen angels' love is a perfection of the love they had before Lucifer's fall.

H: Greg Boyd tries to get around this by saying that such a view only requires that the creatures started out with that capacity (and I elaborate on that more fully in my next post to Greg). The problem with that explanation is that it results in an incoherent concept of love within the Triune Godhead. There is no better or more perfect example of love as that which is revealed within the Godhead. The Father's love for the Son is the ultimate model (Jn 3:35 5:20 10:17 14:31 15:19 17:24). Are you or Mr. Boyd willing to say that the Father started out with the capacity to hate to Son?

I think Dr.Boyd would mention that since God is an eternal, non-contingent, necessary being, He is love perfected and 'embodied'. He is Perfect, and hence is UNABLE to NOT love (like 'a perfect bulb is unable to lose light...'). For CREATED beings, things are different of course, depending on the power given, what kind of creatures we are, etc. We can love and impact creation a lot more than animals; same thing with angels vis-a-vis us.

I think you're insisting that free-willers give a principle of freedom which applies to ALL beings regardless of their nature and the 'stage' of their perfection (or corruption).

This, I hope u can see, is unreasonable.

H: Al replies: I don't have any references. I don't, however, believe there is anything in Scripture which contradicts this. That's quite a lot to hang on an argument from silence.

Point taken. I feel it's safer, though, than what some have 'hanged' on divine immutability, EDF, sovereignity as TOTAL control, etc. (or, rather, what these doctrins hang on to themselves). But this for another day, eh?

H: Al writes: In fact, I'd think the Bible supports it, as it does 'libertarian' freedom in general ...It does? Where?

Any place where it shows God grieving, repenting, rebuking. I assume, naively you may think, that this is because we've done something He doesn't want us to and at least SOME of these divinely unwanted events are NOT 'meticulously ordained' by Him i.e. done against His will.

But let's not go there, 'kay? ;>)

H: If truly genuine love requires the capacity to choose to hate, doesn't it logically follow that evil demons who are beyond the capacity to choose to do good actually are not as evil as they used to be?

If Hitler is so depraved to the point of being unable to even think about love Jews, is he LESS evil? Gimme a break, Hilston...

We're referring to an ADVANCED stage of corruption, where a person loses all desire to be good or is 'beyond the capacity to do good'. Is this so hard to get through? (I can appreciate the critique of my presuppositions, but it's starting to reflect on some deliberate not-so-critical thinking on your part...would u think you're being fair in your evaluation of my position? *smile*)

H: Wait a second! Sinlessness can be GIVEN? Isn't God doing all He can to prevent evil? If so, then why doesn't he give saved people this Sinlessness Gift?

You've missed all I've written, James? Sinlessness is given as a 'reward' CONTINGENT upon a perseverance in doing good. No perseverance, no sinlessness. Would a person who does NOT love his/her spouse want to be given the 'reward' of marriage?

Or like, because you've run the race, u've reached the end and so u don't need to run anymore...doesn't invalidate the running one bit...

H: How then do we make sense of some people suffering loss of reward in heaven and that some are rewarded more than others? Sinlessness is an either/or proposition.

Can u quote me the relevant Bible verse? I have an idea of where it is, but I think you've taken it out of context or have wrongly applied it. Round 2 later.

H: We are urged to grow in love and unity, etc., but it is God who give such increase among the saints. My complaint regards the presupposition that "truly genuine love" or "truly genuine obedience" necessarily includes the capacity to choose to the contrary.

Granted it is God who 'give such increase among the saints' but i hope you can consider the possibility that God gives CONTINGENTLY upon the saints' righteous acts themselves. Think more along the lines of 'reward', 'encouragement', 'motivation', and NOT 'cause'!

Why don't u believe that true love includes the ability to reject love?

H: On my worldview, no. God has done everything perfectly according to His own wisdom, counsel, and decrees.

Again, Hilston, why doesn't God stop the next few rapes from occuring? Does He NEED those for perfection? Will His glory suffer if He stops them? What does He 'get out of it'?

And since we're at it: Do you believe God has the right to limit Himself?

H: But on your worldview, why wouldn't a God who does everything He can to promote good and to crush evil give something to man that he has apparently given to angels?

Because you can't give angelic freedom WITHOUT angelic power, without the implications/risks which this brings.

H: Al writes:Again, remember that we were born sinful (this 'body of death' still binds us somewhat), Lucifer's fall obviously didnt' affect the angels the way Adam's fall did us, ... Ack! Of course! Lucifer did not pass off his fallen nature to the rest of the angels as offspring the way Adam did with the human race. This is totally off the wall.

What's off the wall? ;>)

The point here is that angels are just plain different from Man. We can't simply - as u seem to imply - transfer over 'angelic' freedom without their power and the risks, etc. Your questions seem to be suggesting exactly that, without considering the different natures/reproduction/effects of the two kinds of creatures.

H: OK, just so I understand: Are you suggesting that, since they were given so much to begin with and rejected it, God is especially harsh with them and gives them no second chances? And the corollary point would be: Whereas we humans did not reject as much as they, so we are given a second chance? Is that your position on angelic redemption?

In a nutshell, yes. Except that I think the God-Angel 'contract' states that "Given that u, Angel, are given so much power to obey/serve me, do not ever rebel for your power will corrupt you beyond redmeption and i will not act to save you..." ;>)

H: Do not we humans have the potential of a sinless existence in heaven with God? It has nothing to do with our potential to become a fallen angel. Please explain your point.

Yup, but this potential comes after a struggle with sin on earth. Remember? gift, fulfilment, perfection, etc.?

See http://www.angelfire.com/journal/althehare/heavenfree.html

H: He didn't want to. But that's not a problem on my worldview because I'm not going around attributing characteristics and/or limitations to God and man that require any defense along those lines.

For a guy with lots of questions, you've got a strange way of giving answers. 'Because He wants to', in fact, isn't quite an answer, is it? *smile*

But don't be too sure, James. B'cos I'm sure you'd attribute holiness, goodness and love and a HATE of sin to God, right? But somehow He desired/ordained all evil from eternity? You don't think there's a problem there?

The other thing is, God - I'm sure somewhere in Scripture - says He WANTS us to NOT sin. But you're telling me He's meticulously ordained that I do sin and furthermore, He holds me responsible. What gives, Hilston? Why does God say one thing and do another?

Blessings,
Al

alwyn
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 30

Posted 3/11/2002 3:53 PM (GMT -6)

alwyn
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 30

Posted 3/11/2002 3:58 PM (GMT -6)

sorry for the mistaken double-posting...i'm having some problems with the server...Al.

Hilston
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103

Posted 4/20/2002 7:13 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Al,

I asked: Are you saying that an old person who has lived a life of hate, bitterness and envy is beyond the reach of God to save him?

Al writes:

quote:
Nope, I'm saying that the man will have more and more hate, bitterness and envy in his heart as a result of choosing these things consistently.

Like Saul of Tarsus?

Al writes:

quote:
The non-fallen angels' love is a perfection of the love they had before Lucifer's fall.

How is it a perfection if it is less than genuine? To be genuine love, there must be an equal counter-potential to hate, right? When did the angels lose their freedom to hate?

There is no better or more perfect example of love as that which is revealed within the Godhead. The Father's love for the Son is the ultimate model (Jn 3:35 5:20 10:17 14:31 15:19 17:24). But of course, no one is willing to say that the Father started out with the capacity to hate the Son, so, just as we would expect, one must then invent a stipulated "contingent being" clause. This, of course, then requires one to postulate at least two different kinds of love, neither of which, to my knowledge, has been defined in this forum or Greg Boyd's books.

Al writes:

quote:
I think Dr.Boyd would mention that since God is an eternal, non-contingent, necessary being, He is love perfected and 'embodied'. He is Perfect, and hence is UNABLE to NOT love (like 'a perfect bulb is unable to lose light...').

See what I mean. It's a necessary concoction, stipulated definitions invented to accommodate apriori assumptions. We have God's perfect love, which is biblically described as a model for us to follow, yet by your view, when it's boiled down, it's NOT the same. Are these stipulated kinds of love both agape? Can there be two kinds of agape love? Further, it logically follows that God is not free to not love. This all suggests to me that the OV definition of genuine love is as artificial as it is arbitrary.

Al writes:

quote:
For CREATED beings, things are different of course, depending on the power given, what kind of creatures we are, etc. We can love and impact creation a lot more than animals; same thing with angels
vis-a-vis us.

So are there are degrees of "geniune-ness" regarding love? Do the angels have a greater capacity to love than do humans?

Al writes:

quote:
I think you're insisting that free-willers give a principle of freedom which applies to ALL beings regardless of their nature and the 'stage' of their perfection (or corruption).

Do you mean that there
are different principles of freedom, some that apply to certain beings but not to others? Please explain.

Al previously wrote:

quote:
In fact, I'd think the Bible supports it, as it does 'libertarian' freedom in general ...

Hilston asked: It does? Where?

Al replies:

quote:
Any place where it shows God grieving, repenting, rebuking. ...

Have you forgotten that I believe that God alone is libertarianly free? Providing these examples does not prove libertarian freedom for human beings. Furthermore, each of those actions you mention is an anthropopatheism/anthropomorphism. When God rebukes a human being, the transcendent/immanent/infinite interfaces with the contingent/finite. By metaphysical necessity, a condescensio must be used to describe this interaction.

Al writes:

quote:
I assume, naively you may think, that this is because we've done something He doesn't want us to and at least SOME of these divinely unwanted events are NOT 'meticulously ordained' by Him i.e. done against His will. But let's not go there, 'kay? ;>)

It's completely pertinent to this discussion. Why don't you want to go there?

Hilston had written: If truly genuine love requires the capacity to choose to hate, doesn't it logically follow that evil demons who are beyond the capacity to choose to do good actually are not as evil as they used to be?

Al replies:

quote:
If Hitler is so depraved to the point of being unable to even think about love Jews, is he LESS evil? Gimme a break, Hilston ...

No -- YOU give ME a break. Don't act like it is so axiomatically self-evident that one is foolish to suggest otherwise. It is YOUR arbitrary definition that "genuine" and "greater" love requires a counter-equipotential to hate. The fact that you see the absurdity of the converse tells me quite a bit. It should tell you something as well.

Al writes:

quote:
We're referring to an ADVANCED stage of corruption, where a person loses all desire to be good or is 'beyond the capacity to do good'. Is this so hard to get through?

No need to get upset, Al. I am amused by the epithets, but they're not useful to the discussion. When the Bible speaks of what you describe, it is called reprobation, and it is what God Himself accomplishes against the rebel (Ro 1:24). What you speak of as "advanced stage of corruption", by your logic and definition of love, would amount to the greatest form of love imaginable if that person could pull himself up by his ontological bootstraps and choose to love God in spite of it. The fact that you suggest there is a point at which a person is no longer free to love implies that there must be a dualistic scale upon either side of which love and hate are balanced. An excess of hate eventually cancels out love. An excess of love eventually cancels out hate. It amounts to a salvation by works and a repudiation of grace.

Al writes:

quote:
Sinlessness is given as a 'reward' CONTINGENT upon a perseverance in doing good. No perseverance, no sinlessness.

Is it possible to NOT persevere? Do you believe a person can reject salvation after he has been regenerated?

Al had written:

quote:
Or like, because you've run the race, u've reached the end and so u don't need to run anymore...doesn't invalidate the running one bit...

Hilston then asked: How then do we make sense of some people suffering loss of reward in heaven and that some are rewarded more than others? Sinlessness is an either/or proposition.

Al writes:

quote:
Can u quote me the relevant Bible verse? I have an idea of where it is, but I think you've taken it out of context or have wrongly applied it.

1Co 3: 13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Consider also:
2Jo 1:8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.

I suppose your logic would then suggest that there are those in heaven who would have only partial sinlessness?

Hilston wrote: We are urged to grow in love and unity, etc., but it is God who gives such increase among the saints. My complaint regards the presupposition that "truly genuine love" or "truly genuine obedience" necessarily includes the
capacity to choose to the contrary.

Al writes:

quote:
Granted it is God who 'give such increase among the saints' but i hope you can consider the possibility that God gives CONTINGENTLY upon the saints' righteous acts themselves.

That is contrary to Eph 2:10 and Php 2:12,13, both of which state that God decreed in advance the works and the will of the believer.

Al writes:

quote:
Think more along the lines of 'reward', 'encouragement', 'motivation', and NOT 'cause'! Why don't u believe that true love includes the ability to reject love?

Because it is a human invention, no where found in the scripture. It is a presupposition firmly entrenched for the purpose of denigrating God's singular libertarian freedom and meticulous providence so that He will seem more like us -- a god created in our image.

Hilston wrote: On my worldview, no. God has done everything perfectly according to His own wisdom, counsel, and decrees.

Al writes:

quote:
Again, Hilston, why doesn't God stop the next few rapes from occuring?

Your question isn't tough enough. Why don't we REALLY get down to brass tacks. Here's a better question: "Hilston, why did God decree that a rapist would commit such heinous crimes?" Better, right? Sounds pretty bad for my side when put in those terms, doesn't it? In fact, the rapist might ask this question: "... Why doth he yet find fault? ..." [i.e., how can God blame me, the rapist, if in fact 'it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy? (Ro 9:16).

The rapist might further ask: For who hath resisted his will? [i.e., who stands a chance if in fact it is God's will that determines who receives mercy and who does not? (Ro 9:18).

Paul answers the question rhetorically, which it seems to me, the OV-ist would find repugnant: Ro 9:20 "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?"

Al asks:

quote:
Does He NEED those for perfection? Will His glory suffer if He stops them? What does He 'get out of it'?

God infallibly works all things according to His own plans and purposes, some of which are revealed in scripture, some of which are not. I'm guessing you don't like that idea, but then again, why shouldn't God be allowed to do what He wants with His creation? To answer your question, God is self-sustaining and self-sufficient. He doesn't *need* anything and nothing will stop Him from being glorified.

Al asks:

quote:
And since we're at it: Do you believe God has the right to limit Himself?

To me, this shows the depth and pervasiveness of your error, and the logical consequence of forcing wooden/literalistic interpretations upon anthropopatheia/anthropomorphia. What possible meaning does "right" have regarding God's character, nature, attributes and actions? Whence comes this "right" as you call it? Who granted that "right"? Who secures it? The same mode of thinking that puts "right" in the context of God's character also erroneously speaks of "responsibility" regarding God's free actions, as if God must answer to anyone.

Hilston wrote: But on your worldview, why wouldn't a God who does everything He can to promote good and to crush evil give something to man that he has apparently given to angels?

Al writes:

quote:
Because you can't give angelic freedom WITHOUT angelic power, without the implications/risks which this brings.

Why? I thought God was all about "taking risks," especially when it comes to the topic of "genuine love." Why not take the risk of giving man the ability to no longer sin? Besides, your premise is contrary to what the Bible teaches, viz., that angels are under the administrative power of the Body of Christ. They are subject to us (1Co 6:1-3 Eph 3:10), and in eternity, we shall righteously govern and administrate over them.

Al writes:

quote:
The point here is that angels are just plain different from Man. We can't simply - as u seem to imply - transfer over 'angelic' freedom without their power and the risks, etc.

Why not? Surely God could handle taking such a risk.

Al writes:

quote:
Your questions seem to be suggesting exactly that, without considering the different natures/reproduction/effects of the two kinds of creatures.

Are you saying that God couldn't handle it?

Hilston had written: OK, just so I understand: Are you suggesting that, since they were given so much to begin with and rejected it, God is especially harsh with them and gives them no second chances? And the corollary point would be: Whereas we humans did not reject as much as they, so we are given a second chance? Is that your position on angelic redemption?

Al writes:

quote:
In a nutshell, yes. Except that I think the God-Angel 'contract' states that "Given that u, Angel, are given so much power to obey/serve me, do not ever rebel for your power will corrupt you beyond redmeption and i will not act to save you..."

This is wild speculation compounded upon unfounded premises. Do you have any biblical references to support this?

Al writes:

quote:
For a guy with lots of questions, you've got a strange way of giving answers. 'Because He wants to', in fact, isn't quite an answer, is it? *smile*.

It's the answer given by scripture, Al. It IS, in fact, THE answer. Ro 9:19 Eph 1:5-9 Php 2:13. You may not like it, as it seems to be the case with most OV-ists, but it doesn't change the verity of the claim.

Al writes:

quote:
But don't be too sure, James. B'cos I'm sure you'd attribute holiness, goodness and love and a HATE of sin to God, right? But somehow He desired/ordained all evil from eternity? You don't think there's a problem there?

From "all eternity"? Not at all. God's decision to create sinful humanity came after His decision to create the Body of Christ (Eph 1:4). In any case, what problem do you have with God's foreordination of evil? Are you suggesting that God could not ordain sin and hate sin at the same time? Why?

Al writes:

quote:
The other thing is, God - I'm sure somewhere in Scripture - says He WANTS us to NOT sin. But you're telling me He's meticulously ordained that I do sin and furthermore, He holds me responsible.

Right. What is so difficult about that? Why do you have a problem with that?

Al writes:

quote:
What gives, Hilston? Why does God say one thing and do another?

Where have I or anyone said that God says one thing but does another?

James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org

alwyn
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 30

Posted 4/21/2002 6:10 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Hilston,

Thanks for replying. I think, however, that I've already answered most of your questions so - lest we go round and round - it's best to put them aside. The other thing is I hope maybe you or someone else could start another thread on the Cal-Arm passages, 'irresistible grace', etc.

So back to the discussion...just a few comments, as I'm not sure we're both getting any wiser throughout...;>)

I've tried to make sense of freedom and love as I see it in Scripture, in experience and, yes, with my assumptions about what agency is all about. Note, though, that you too speak from presuppositions, a prioris, 'necessary concoctions' (great phrase, Hilston), etc. For e.g.:

Hilston wrote:
There is no better or more perfect example of love as that which is revealed within the Godhead. The Father's love for the Son is the ultimate model (Jn 3:35 5:20 10:17 14:31 15:19 17:24). But of course, no one is willing to say that the Father started out with the capacity to hate the Son, so, just as we would expect, one must then invent a stipulated "contingent being" clause. This, of course, then requires one to postulate at least two different kinds of love, neither of which, to my knowledge, has been defined in this forum or Greg Boyd's books.

I take your point on your disagreeing with me (though I rejoice with you on your first 2 sentences, *smile*). But you are likewise assuming that there is NO DIFFERENCE between how a necessary being experiences/gives love and how a contingent one would. But granted that differences of SOME kind do pertain between God and us, how do you know that it wouldn't apply to our freedom, agency, etc.?

As you probable realise, your own axioms (the complexity of which I doubt we should go into at this stage) permeate your reading of Scripture. For e.g:

Hilston wrote:
Providing these examples (of repentance, etc.) does not prove libertarian freedom for human beings. Furthermore, each of those actions you mention is an anthropopatheism/anthropomorphism. When God rebukes a human being, the transcendent/immanent/infinite interfaces with the contingent/finite. By metaphysical necessity, a condescensio must be used to describe this interaction.

But how do you know what is an anthropomorphism and what isn't, how do you know so much about God's transcendence, immanence, infinitude, etc.? Your 'metaphysical necessities' reflect, let's agree, your own pre-understanding of what God MUST be like, His nature, etc. You have presupposed that God CANNOT repent even when Scripture says He does and has Him saying so. (The entire OV endeavor stems from a desire to let these passages 'play' in formulating an understanding of God's being. I see it as a breakthrough in letting God be what He says He is, allowing a richer harmonization of Scripture. Of course problems/questions abound, but what else is new? *grin*)

Suffice to say, my (and I think many non-Calvinist's) position is that we need to tease out how love applies to angels, to Man, to God(!) and in what stage/phase a certain contingent creatures is in. These distinctions or nuances or 'tiers' etc. have not, as I see it, been taken into account by your objections. To repeat, I don't think it's possible to credibly provide some universal 'law' which applies in ALL instances (to every being at all times) and whilst I respect your efforts at deriving this from Scripture, I feel there are better interpretations.

So, maybe here's the crux between us: you're looking for some eternal 'law'/principle; I insist there are a few which apply at different phases, to different kinds of being, contingent on how they use the agency given them, the effect of the agency of others (incl. God), and so on.

I hope this finds you well (smile)...

Blessings,
Al

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:27 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual