Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Extraneous Stuff: Skit From An Insomniac

Forum Quick Jump

54 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

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

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/17/2001 1:50 PM (GMT -6)

Starkman: Address the issue, if you would, of God in His sphere and Jesus in our sphere; tell me how Jesus can be tempted but God can't. If I can solve that one, I can put this to rest in my head!

Doc: I'm not sure I can answer this in a way that will address your unique perspective and concerns -- which, perhaps from brain fatigue, I'm having trouble tracking at the moment.

When James says "God cannot be tempted" I take this to mean something like "God in his essential nature." Jesus COULD be tempted because he is GOD BECOME A HUMAN, and humans, by definition (I take it) are "temptable."

Think of it this way: temptation is the result of having a the capacity to choose against God. (It doesn't require having that CHARACTER that WILL choose against God... see the christology thread on this). God in his essential nature always chooses God -- The Father, Son and Holy Spirit always choose each other in love, for love is their nature. When the Son becomes a human, however, he TAKES ON something new. He takes on the essentially human capacity to choose against God. He must EXPERIENCE this mental capacity or else he wouldn't be fully human. (Again, he needn't experience actual CHOOSING against God or possess the kind of contingent character that COULD choose against God.)

This is how I'd reconcile the statement "God cannot be tempted" with the statement "Jesus could be tempted" and with the statement "Jesus was God."

I'm not sure how this relates to your "two sphere's" hypothesis.

I suspect, Starkman, that the basic reason why you don't want to affirm that "God is good" in his essential nature, from all eternity, is because you are DEFINING good as the ability to withstand the temptation from evil. Since God doesn't have to withstand this temptation, he is not "good." He's ABOVE being "good."

If so, I can agree with your logic. But I question your definition of "good." I would think that a being who can't even be tempted is "better" than a being who can. IN this sense, perhaps, Scripture says "Jesus was MADE PERFECT (telos =completed) by the things which he suffered."

As God, he is the only one perfectly GOOD in his essential nature.

Am I right in diagnosing why you are averse to calling God "good" from all eternity?

Got to go

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 12/18/2001 7:29 AM (GMT -6)

Doc,

Thanks for the response. Let me first say that I was asking the question about addressing Christ being tempted verses God being tempted precisely because I am in agreement with your view.

Further...

Doc: I suspect, Starkman, that the basic reason why you don't want to affirm that "God is good" in his essential nature, from all eternity, is because you are DEFINING good as the ability to withstand the temptation from evil. Since God doesn't have to withstand this temptation, he is not "good." He's ABOVE being "good."

Starkman: Yes, but I'd probably say God is "outside of" goodness rather than above it. It'd be more to my point.

Doc: If so, I can agree with your logic. But I question your definition of "good." I would think that a being who can't even be tempted is "better" than a being who can.

Starkman: I agree: a being who can't be tempted is better than one who can. That's what I was after.

Lastly,

Doc: As God, he is the only one perfectly GOOD in his essential nature. Am I right in diagnosing why you are averse to calling God "good" from all eternity?

Starkman: Yes, for the most part, but I just want to clarify that I believe God is good in His essential nature ONLY because this is ONLY what He can do when presented with a situation calling for moral goodness - created beings, for instance, having ended up within a sphere of existance that calls for moral goodness defined, as we have.

God ONLY has goodness to be, life to be, love to be, etc. Evil comes from these, not the other way around. Goodness as a moral is how God will show Himself when presented with an existance (the actuality of such) that is NOT of God. Am I mucking this up even more???

In other words, where there's no good there's no possibility to choose or even be tempted to choose evil. This is exactly why Christ could be tempted; He had that part called humanity attached to Him to be tempted. God does not, so God cannot be tempted. BUT were God to come into relationship with that which can be tempted (fallen humanity), God can ONLY be that which is good. There's no other option for God to be. He can't be evil (as we understand and define evil) because there's no moral good, so to speak, in Him to pervert. A built-in safeguard, eh!!!

He is good IN A FALLEN world because He only has that to be as He relates with those who are not morally good. So, God is morally good in that it is the only option God has to be when He is faced with that which isn't good. Hence, God cannot be tempted.

In a non-fallen existance where there is no sin, no knowledge of it (other than by God), God ceases to display "moral" goodness (there's no longer a context requiring it) and simply is. Who would say "Boy, God is good, isn't He".

It's a fine line between what you've posted and where I'm coming from. It isn't to say that God isn't good morally (for that is truely what we see and know as He's shown us), but it is to say "behind" this present context and true to an existance of which God is "uninterruptedly" God, I see no necessity of moral goodness. Again, God then truely cannot be tempted.

Anyway, that's what I'm thinking!

Starkman!

Edited by - Starkman on 12/18/2001 12:34:48 PM

Edited by - Starkman on 12/18/2001 12:40:11 PM

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 12/21/2001 4:51 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Brandon, great reflections. Thanks.

As to the verse you quoted: Matt 19:17 "Why ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "Only God IS good. But to answer your question, you can receive eternal life if you keep the commandments."

This kind of touches upon the heart of the matter. Surely Jesus was Good, was He not. Surely he qualified to be called Good. However, the attention is taken off Him, because moral goodness isn't the issue here; something beyond that is: proper alignment with God is. Moral goodness is irrelevant at this juncture.

I believe it's highly possible that Jesus was saying "I am morally good, yes, I am not in whole the kind of goodness that means anything to your statement."

Stark,

I haven't ignored your post. It just that I have been working alot of O.T. and busy getting the kids and the holidays and all. I will just put two cents in here till I get more time.

Your response in the quote above still does not negate that God is good. Yes, the point seems to me, in this text, to be talking about "moral alignment"...as well. But it only adds to it.

No, scholar that I have read, when Jesus asks, "Why call me good?" would take this to mean that Jesus does not consider himself to be good, as you say above, in so far as he is God. And to be sure, it was typical for rabbis to not want/seek/ask to be called such (which would affirm the second part of your quote above). But this only seems to reinforce the point that God is good 'cause Jesus takes the focus off himself and points back to His Father and in no uncertain terms reiterates who is genuinely good (agathos)...all moral alignment aside. Hence, the contrast, "NOT ME, BUT GOD!"

Brandon
P.S. When we say that God is "above"good, this seems to me to say that in some way God is paradoxically "better" than or "higher" than good, but in order to be above "that" it seems that "that has to be concretely good.

Edited by - BBBCanada on 12/21/2001 09:56:18 AM

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 12/23/2001 10:50 AM (GMT -6)

Brandon,

Hey, do I know being busy! We just moved: packed and in the U-Haul by 11:30am Dec 21 from Farmington, and in Kensington at 3:30am Dec 22! Then up at 10:00am to unload it. I'm not sore, but I'm, well, confused! I can't yet make heads or tails of where or what I am! Ha! (we're actually moving to Barrett. Pray, would you, that The Lord opens the door for the job I'm suppose to have!

Okay, onto the posts...

Just so you know where I stand with regard to Jesus being good, here's my former quote:

quote:
Surely Jesus was Good, was He not. Surely he qualified to be called Good. However, the attention is taken off Him, because moral goodness isn't the issue here; something beyond that is: proper alignment with God is. Moral goodness is irrelevant at this juncture.

Yes, Jesus is good...Good! Morally and "above"/"outside" that, too!

The NIV reads "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
"Why do you ask me about what is good?...There is only One who is good.

The NKJV varies slightly with "Good Teacher..." - the word "Good" not being in some mss.

Okay, that Jesus is morally good is not in question - it showed in that He was within a context that clearly exemplified it: sinful earth and its occupants. That God - the Father, but in whole the Trinity in general - is good morally ONLY, I believe, when God is, again, dealing IN an arena calling for Goodness.

Consider, as I posted above, the idea that if God is morally good ontologically, He is subject to temptation, to sin. Oh, He may never submit to such, but never the less He could be challenged with it.

To say that He is "above" being good is really to have said what? I noted your statement: "When we say that God is "above"good, this seems to me to say that in some way God is paradoxically "better" than or "higher" than good, but in order to be above "that" it seems that "that has to be concretely good.", but I can only feel, BBB, that we are still left unclear and undefined regarding our discussion.

If God is above, it can mean apart from (but not quite the fit that "outside of" reflects for my choice of terms). It can't mean better or higher. Those words themselves suffice to define "above". Concretely good is nothing more than perfectly good. We are still talking about God being morally good here and thus subject to temptation. Now, just to note, if the real meaning of the text "God cannot be tempted" or "God cannot sin" means "He'd never succumb to such even if you did try and tempt Him", well, then I'd have to say, okay, then God is ontologically good morally. And if that's the case, I'd turn my thinking around. But it seems that the text "God cannot be tempted" implies God really can't be tempted; He doesn't have the same ontology as we, therefore He isn't subject to temptation, lying, sinning, etc. Being merely extra good or concretely good would still leave God temptable. He therefore must be outside of this issue all together unless, or rather, until He enters into that element where the makeup of His creation DOES exist within the ability to be tempted, such as humanity.

Finally, with regard to the man who asked Jesus that question about good things, he was simply a rich man. He understood the concept of approaching God by works and not outside of the law (not above it, but outside it). Jesus qualified as being morally good. Temptable, though, because of the human element! God (if my understanding of "God cannot be tempted stands) cannot be tempted because He is neither created, man or of any inherrant element contributing to what made Adam and Eve temptable: free choice from a created being's concept and not that from a self-existing being.

Jesus said in response to the rich man "Why do you ask me about what is good?...There is only One who is good." I can see how Jesus could have been saying "Hey", "you're not good, God is, so am I but that's not the point." But I'd still be left with the question: okay, so what? What's the issue?

I find that Jesus pointing to God as one being morally good, the perfect moral being, etc., insufficent to Jesus' ministry. Yes, Jesus points to the Law to drive the man to his knees morally, but that is only to say what what Law always has said: God is not a murder, a thief, a liar. God would never have killed Adam, Eve or any offspring if there were no sin which THEY had brought on. In a sinless environment No one would have understood moral goodness - God's original plan! Choice isn't something for God to consider with regard to choosing right/wrong, good/bad, it was an issue for His creation, something that will always be outside God's sphere; otherwise, the creation would be God! That should say something about what God is really like.

Finally, why then does God show Himself as good. As I posted above, it is the ONLY logical and practical way for God to act/be when called for. Evil is not self-existant. It doesn't exist simultaneoulsy in the eternal as God does. It only comes to life (well, okay, death) when good is around. God can ONLY be morally good when an environment He creates calls for it. He can't be evil or do evil because that is to assume good. And that is why I feel God is outside moral goodness: He isn't subject at all to anything the Devil, or any other evil being can throw at Him to tempt Him. It's like talking to a rock and expecting it to talk back. (no, God's not a rock...wait, He is the Rock! Wow, I kind of backed myself into a corner there, didn't I! Wrong analogy!!!). So, in our context we see God as the epitemy of good, and so He is. But from God's perspective, I'd suggest HE sees Himself as outside of moral goodness. I guess we automatically think then that He could do evil, but that's not the case. He can only do good.

Well, time's up, my good man, Brandon!
I'm on my wife's daughter's account and I'll have to get the Net set up here shortly (hopefully Christmas eve or I'm going to have withdraws something fierce!).

Talk at ya then,

Starkman

Anyway, if it can be shown that "God cannot be tempted" is a morally supportive statement suggesting only that God is just too darned good to be tempted, well, my stance would change. But I believe the rich ruler's appeal to that which was of his element (goodness) was exactly what Jesus sought to disprove. Yes, I can see the moral implications ONLY because that's what we understand, but the crux of the issue, I believe is that behind it all, God is good as one who is purely good but only because He's willing to enter INTO that to have relationship with us. Otherwise Jesus could have focused the attention on Himself. He was good. But He was within a sphere that God is not: humanity.

54 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:47 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