 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Response to Empiress on Free Will | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 1/26/2002 4:07 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Would you have forfeited CREATION (which wasn't necessary) rather than watch sentient beings suffer eternally, if you KNEW that the eternal suffering of at least ONE being was inevitable? Hmmm...
Meph...can I ask why you ask that? It feels like a loaded question but I'm not sure what's behind it or what you're getting at!  How would you answer it?
My gut reaction though is: yes, I'd forfeit creation. But then again, you're asking a Universalist! *goes off to think about it some more*
~Miss E
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 1/26/2002 5:06 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Meph...can I ask why you ask that? It feels like a loaded question but I'm not sure what's behind it or what you're getting at! How would you answer it?
The question stems from a thread that was here called "Was it Really Worth It?" Here is the first post from that thread...
___________________________________
Let's say that you are someone who believes that the emergence of sin was pretty much INEVITABLE, meaning that it was HIGHLY PROBABLE to the point of nigh certainty that at least one person would end up being separated from God as time played out. (Whether you want to posit an eternal punishment of not makes no nevermind to me. Admittedly though, the stakes do become a tad higher positing eternal punishment.)
My question is...Was it worth it? Is God's plan for loving relationships with human beings worth the life of ONE human (or angelic?) being? I'm presupposing the self-sufficiency of God, where God would have been completely satisfied with the sociality going on in the Trinity. Would it have been better for God to have not created at all? I'm just trying to see how utilitarian we will get here. I've placed this here before...from Fyodor Dostoyevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov" page 287
"Imagine that it is you yourself who are erecting the edifice of human destiny with the aim of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and contentment at last, but that to do that it is absolutely necessary, and indeed quite inevitable, to torture to death only one tiny creature,...would you consent to be the architect under those conditions?"
I see the same type of thought applying. I'm placing the scales like this. If we believe that the emergence of sin was pretty much inevitable, then we have to say that the cost of ALL happiness, bliss and joy that God and human beings may get from this risky move of love and reciprocity is AT LEAST the punishment (torment, pitible annihilation?) of one human being. Seeing as how creation itself is not NECESSARY to God, I find it hard to ultimately say that this is a case of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one" There needn't have been any "needs of the many" at all! God would have been perfectly ok without the world. Is God's free gracious creation of free beings WORTH the loss of ONE sentient being? Justify your reasoning please.
___________________________________
Hopefully, this explains a bit. You said two things:
1) that you would rather forfeit HEAVEN than to see ANY being endure eternal suffering
2) you postulate that you can't imagine yourself being MORE loving than God implying that God SHOULD want to at LEAST do the same thing.
I thought this was interesting given the open view of heaven and hell (of those who are NOT annihilationists). I figured that you would pretty much answer that you personally would NOT create rather than watch a person endure that. So, what does that say about God, in your view? I'm VERY interested.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/26/2002 6:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph: What do you think is (are?) Job's question(s)?
I'll do a better job tommorow. But to be simple, both the Estern church Fathers , and K.G. Jung were very interested in Job's question. Evdokimov treats it in pages 200-208 of "Women and the Salvation of the World". Both Pia and Modes have acces to that text. I'll try to xerox it, make some notes, and give you a synopsis. OK?
PottedOutForNow
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 1/26/2002 6:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Okay...back to Mephi's question:
quote:
Would you have forfeited CREATION (which wasn't necessary) rather than watch sentient beings suffer eternally, if you KNEW that the eternal suffering of at least ONE being was inevitable?
Okay, I skimmed through the old thread and got a better sense of the question.
I WOULD create people if I knew they would sin, but only in a Universalist context or one in which people "cease to exist" at the end of time if they so choose.
I WOULD NOT create people if I knew they would sin and it meant that one or more would "suffer eternally."
That's what I would do, but then again, my knowledge is limited and I'm not Divine.
IF God created us with BOTH the FOREKNOWLEDGE that we would sin and the FOREKNOWLEDGE that some would have to suffer eternally, I would find it very difficult to trust such a Deity.
~Miss E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/26/2002 8:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Empiress, I'd LOVE to be a universalist. But I don't see how its possible given a) Scripture and b) reason. As to a, while there are certainly a few passages that can be interpreted in a universalist fashion, the general teaching of Scripture is to parrallel eternal heaven with eternal hell (whether its eternal conscious torment or eternal annhilation is a different issue). Regarding b, I understand the point of your "limiting freedom" thing. But if we have the power to resist God NOW, what makes you believe we WON'T have the power later? (cf. Lk 16).
If hell is letting people go their own way (cf. C.S.Lewis, Problem of Pain and Great Divorce), then would it be morally objectionable for God to create a world which he foreknows will produce some beings who will to go his way (heaven) and some who most likely will go their own way? From the perspective of the redeemed, the fate of the lost is torment. From their own perspective, however, its exactly what they want.
"Herein is the condemnation of the world, that people LOVED DARKNESS rather than light." (Jn 3:19)
Great discussion you guys! Wish I could jump in more.
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/27/2002 2:59 AM (GMT -6) | | A few random comments:
Semeia: I realize that is what Doc is saying, but nonetheless it seems illogical to me…. NOT having the ability to do something, even if that something is negative, is not ever a greater freedom than HAVING the ability to do something, even if one never chooses to do it. Now, I think when you are an eternal being like God, and you know everything about sin--what causes it and what it leads to--you simply don't have any temptation in that regard. I mean, I've never had any struggle whatsoever concerning whether or not I should go play on the freeway.
Doc: We aren’t disagree here Semeia. You are just specifying WHY God is free from having to genuinely choose between holiness and sin, and WHY you are free from having to choose between playing on the freeway or not. A person who HAD to genuinely choose between playing on the freeway or not would be less free, and less wise, than you.
Semeia: It is completely contradictory to say that God is both omnipotent and yet oddly he doesn't have the power to commit a sin.
Doc: Sheer Power isn’t the issue. Wisdom and character is, as your previous analogy demonstrated.
Mephi: From what I understand, Doc makes it clear that, under certain circumstances, God CAN INDEED negate our free will, making it like unto compatibilism. This is well within the parameters of open view theism.
Doc: The crucial ingredient here is "under certain circumstances." Because of God's decision to create this kind of world where agents are genuinely given "say so," there are many variables that condition what all agents can and can not do -- including God. Moreover, if God providentially directs an agent in a way that is more determinative than simply steering how they act out their own freely acquired character, I would say the agent is NOT morally responsible for the act. I can’t deny that God COULD do this, though I see no reason to think he does.
Mephi: (ON why God doesn’t override libertarian free will in tough circumstances) "it ends up either being a mystery of circumstance (Doc's view) or a mystery of God's willing (my view). But given the notion that compatibilism of humans by God IS POSSIBLE within open view theism, how can the mystery of circumstance idea really hold up?
Doc: By holding that the possiblity of rendering humans compatibilistically free is contingent upon circumstances. Freedom of contrary choice means agents have the power to make contrary choices, and this must be irrevocable – otherwise our choices could hardly be contrary. But this principle may be (I’m sure IS) conditioned by multitudes of factors – e.g. our inherited constitution, previous choices, other agents, God’s general will, etc…
Semeia: Can't you and Doc both be right?
Doc: If Meph grants that God’s will is ONE of the (not the only) variables that constitutes the total constellation of variables in a given situation – we can kiss and make up.  Otherwise, only I can be right? 
Vexen: It seems that our actual actions and shortcomings in real life are frequently not our choice, or are immensely influenced by forces out of our control, it would seem to me that in these cases it is God's duty, upon that person's death, to show them the truth and alter their basic personality so that they have a chance to make a free informed decisions about their future.
Doc: Yes, only the eschaton will sort it all out. This is why we can't judge others. Think how difficult it sometimes is for jurors to assertain the extent to which an agent was and was not responsible for what they did.
Moreover, I personally think your intuition about "post-mortem evangelism" is sound. I think it’s the only view that is wholly consistent with the free will defense. If its a metaphysical truth that love for contingent beings MUST be chosen, then there can't be exceptions. If there are exceptions, there's no longer any reason why God had to take any risk in striving for his creational objective of acquiring a bride. (I discuss this in one of the appendixes of Satan and the Problem of Evil.)
Semeia: As far as the meaning of life, I'm still waiting for an answer on that one. The only thing I'm sure of is that it HAS meaning, but even there I have no definitive proof to offer.
Doc: Really Semeia? I would have thought you’d say something like, "loving God with all your heart, soul and mind and loving your neighbor as yourself." The New Testament depicts this in terms of God acquiring for himself a bride, and the purpose of the bride is a) to be the bride and b) to grow as the bride both spiritually and numerically. Another way of saying this is that the purpose is for the rule of God to be established in people and then through people till the whole world is finally brought back to God. Are you unsure about this? If so, why?
Final Word: Meph, I love your thinking. But theres a few points I just can’t get clear on. One is your distinction between "libertarian freedom" and "power of contrary choice." David Hunt makes this distinction in his essay in Four Views of Divine Foreknowledge, but I couldn’t make heads or tails of it there either (he roots it in his Frankfurt analogy which we discussed last year. I think the argument is inadequate, as I argue in Four Views.) Could you indulge me once again my brother and articulate what the difference amounts to in your view?
Blessings
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 1/27/2002 5:36 AM (GMT -6) | | The lovely Miss E said:
quote:
IF God created us with BOTH the FOREKNOWLEDGE that we would sin and the FOREKNOWLEDGE that some would have to suffer eternally, I would find it very difficult to trust such a Deity.
Dag, yo. Then I think you'll have a big problem with a vast majority of open view theists.
Doc said:
quote:
Empiress, I'd LOVE to be a universalist. But I don't see how its possible given a) Scripture and b) reason. As to a, while there are certainly a few passages that can be interpreted in a universalist fashion, the general teaching of Scripture is to parrallel eternal heaven with eternal hell (whether its eternal conscious torment or eternal annhilation is a different issue). Regarding b, I understand the point of your "limiting freedom" thing. But if we have the power to resist God NOW, what makes you believe we WON'T have the power later? (cf. Lk 16).
If hell is letting people go their own way (cf. C.S.Lewis, Problem of Pain and Great Divorce), then would it be morally objectionable for God to create a world which he foreknows will produce some beings who will to go his way (heaven) and some who most likely will go their own way? From the perspective of the redeemed, the fate of the lost is torment. From their own perspective, however, its exactly what they want.
I'm with you, Doc. Universalism is a nice hope, but I don't see it as much more than that. As far as the hell thing, wouldn't this fall into the idea of a good parent who recognizes that SOMETIMES the choices of their children to "go their own way", regardless of how they personally feel about it, should NOT be allowed. If there would be any situation where I think this would apply, it would be with ETERNAL reprecussions and suffering.
Doc said:
quote:
Moreover, I personally think your intuition about "post-mortem evangelism" is sound. I think it’s the only view that is wholly consistent with the free will defense. If its a metaphysical truth that love for contingent beings MUST be chosen, then there can't be exceptions. If there are exceptions, there's no longer any reason why God had to take any risk in striving for his creational objective of acquiring a bride. (I discuss this in one of the appendixes of Satan and the Problem of Evil.)
Doc, ARE YOU FOR REAL???? Surely you recognize that this is COMPLETELY extra-biblical? You may as well postulate a "purgatory"! Hmmm... Again, I see this as another "hope" that is not adequately grounded in Scripture. Not solid at all. As far as what you are saying about it being consistent with the free will defense, I see what you are saying. But STILL, man! 
Doc:
quote:
Meph, I love your thinking. But theres a few points I just can’t get clear on. One is your distinction between "libertarian freedom" and "power of contrary choice." David Hunt makes this distinction in his essay in Four Views of Divine Foreknowledge, but I couldn’t make heads or tails of it there either (he roots it in his Frankfurt analogy which we discussed last year. I think the argument is inadequate, as I argue in Four Views.) Could you indulge me once again my brother and articulate what the difference amounts to in your view?
Anything for you, my good Doctor. The main difference between the LFW and the power of volition is simply that LFW is indeterministic as the highest levels of reality whereas the power of volition is not. See, on OUR LEVEL OF EXISTENCE, libertarian free will and the power of volition are INDISTINGUISHABLE. (I keep bringing this up) Speaking theologically, the ONLY being that the two would any real difference to is God. Remember my "conversion" thread. If one wants to assert that God WANTED beings who were completely ontologically distinct from himself that he could have reciprocal activities ON HIS LEVEL, then one has to assert LFW. No ifs, ands, or buts. However...and this is important...
If one DOES NOT FIND IT THAT IMPORTANT TO GOD for him to have created the beings mentioned above, then the "power of volition" would be JUST fine!!!
In other words, if we can say that God would be satisfied being the Screenwriter of his own script of existence, so be it. Personally, I don't see God just FAWNING over having these ontologically distinct beings. If that's what people want to believe, cool. It's not a big issue to me. At any rate, here's the difference, I think. Holla.
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/27/2002 5:18 PM (GMT -6) | | | For some fun....see "The River of Fire" (an encore posting) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 1/28/2002 3:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc said:
quote:
Empiress, I'd LOVE to be a universalist. But I don't see how its possible given a) Scripture and b) reason.
I went ahead and responded to this in a new thread!
Mephi said:
quote:
Dag, yo. Then I think you'll have a big problem with a vast majority of open view theists.
I do differ from Doc's portrayal of Open Theism in that I believe God knows even less about the future and future events than his OV posits. Of course, my ideas about Universalism cause me to part company with the vast majority in the first place.
~Miss E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Vexen
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 1/28/2002 10:11 AM (GMT -6) | | And a great essay it was too! I have an idea!
I posted a passionate rant in response to doubt over universalism, perhaps you could take the entirity of my text and quote it at the end of your essay in an area called "Vexen's support of universalism"... you can edit out the references to Satanism if you want!
--
Vexen
http://www.vexen.co.uk | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/28/2002 12:05 PM (GMT -6) | | HERE'S THE FREE WILL TO TOP ALL OTHER EXAMPLES OF FREE WILL.
Its from Bishop
=========================
From Bishop Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Way", chapter 4--God as Man,
pp78-80. (Ware is Orthodox and teaches at Oxford.)
Obedient unto Death
Christ's Incarnation is already an act of salvation. By taking up our broken humanity into himself, Christ restores it and, in the words of another Christmas hymn, "lifts up the fallen image". But in that case why was a death necessary? Was it not enough for one of the Trinity to live as man on earth, to think, feel and will as a man, without also having to die as a man?
In an unfallen world the Incarnation of Christ would indeed have sufficed as the perfect expression of God's ongoing love. But in a fallen and sinful world his love had to reach our yet further. Because of the tragic presence of sin and evil, the work of man's restoration was to prove infinitely costly. A sacrificial act of healing was required, a sacrifice such as only a suffering and crucified God could offer.
The Incarnation, it was said, is an act of identification and sharing. God saves us by identifying himself with us, by knowing our human experience from the inside. The Cross signifies, in the most stark and uncompromising manner, that this act of sharing is carried to the utmost limits. God incarnate enters into all [all/i] our experience. Jesus Christ our companion shares not only in the fullness of human life but also in the fullness of human death. "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows" (Isa. 53:4) -- [i[all our griefs, [i[all our sorrows. "The unassumed is unhealed": but Christ our healer has assumed into himself everything, even death.
Death has both a physical and a spiritual aspect, and of the two it is the spiritual that is the more terrible. Physical death is the separation of man's body from his soul; spiritual death, the separation of man's soul from God. When we say that Christ became "obedient unto death" (Phil. 2:8), we should not think only of the bodily sufferings which Christ endured at his Passion -- the scourging, the stumbling beneath the weight of the Cross, the nails, the thirst and heat, the torment of hanging stretched on the wood. The true meaning of the Passion is found, not in this only, but much more in his spiritual sufferings -- in his sense of failure, isolation and utter loneliness, in the pain of love offered but rejected.
The Gospels are understandably reticent in speaking about his inward suffering; yet they provide us with certain glimpses. First, there is Christ's Agony in the garden of Gethsemane, when he is overwhelmed by horror and dismay, when he prays in anguish to his Father, "If it is possible, let this cup pass from me" (Matt/ 26:39), and when his sweat falls to the ground "like great drops of blood" (Luke 22:44). Gethsemane, as Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev insisted, provides the key to our whole doctrine of the Atonement. Christ is here confronted by a choice. Under no compulsion to die, freely he chooses to do so; and by this act of voluntary self-offering he turns what would have been a piece of arbitrary violence, a judicial murder, into a redemptive sacrifice. But this act of free choice is immensely difficult. Resolving to go forward to arrest and crucifixion, Jesus experiences, in the words of William Law, "the anguishing terrors of a lost soul . . the reality of eternal death". Full weight must be given to Christ's words at Gethsemane, "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death" (Matt. 26:38). Jesus enters at this moment totally into the experience of spiritual death. He is at this moment identifying himself with all the despair and mental pain of humanity, and this identification is far more important to us than his participation in our physical pain.
A second glimpse is given us at the Crucifixion, when Christ cries our with a loud voice. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46). Once again, full weight should be given to these words. Here is the extreme point of Christ's desolation, when he feels abandoned not only by men but by God. We cannot begin to explain how it is possible for one who is himself the living God to lose awareness of the divine presence. But this at least is evident. In Christ's Passion there is no play-acting, nothing is done for outward show. Each word from the Cross means what it says. And it the cry "My God, my God..." is to signify anything at all, it must mean that at this moment Jesus is truly experiencing the spiritual death of separation from God. Not only does he shed his blood for us, but for our sakes he accepts even the loss of God.
"He descended into hell" (Apostles Creed). Does this mean merely that Christ went to preach to the departed spirits during the interval between Great Friday evening and Easter morning (see 1 Pet. 3:19)? Surely it has also a deeper sense. Hell is a point not in space but in the soul. It is the place where God is not. (And yet God is everywhere!) If Christ truly "descended into hell", that means he descended into the depths of the absence of God. Totally, unreservedly, he identifies himself with all man's anguish and alienation. He assumed it unto himself, and by assuming it he healed it. There was no other way he could heal it, except by making it his own.
Such is the message of the Cross to each one of us. However far I have to travel through the valley of the shadow of death, I am never alone I have a companion. And this companion is not only a true man as I am, but also true God from true God. At the moment of Christ's deepest humiliation on the Cross, he is as much the eternal and living God as he is at his Transfiguration in glory upon Mount Tabor. Looking upon Christ crucified, I see not only a suffering man but suffering God.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 1/28/2002 6:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc said:quote:
Semeia: As far as the meaning of life, I'm still waiting for an answer on that one. The only thing I'm sure of is that it HAS meaning, but even there I have no definitive proof to offer.
Doc: Really Semeia? I would have thought you’d say something like, "loving God with all your heart, soul and mind and loving your neighbor as yourself." The New Testament depicts this in terms of God acquiring for himself a bride, and the purpose of the bride is a) to be the bride and b) to grow as the bride both spiritually and numerically. Another way of saying this is that the purpose is for the rule of God to be established in people and then through people till the whole world is finally brought back to God. Are you unsure about this? If so, why?
Semeia: You're surprised that I'm not sure about the meaning of life? That surprises me! I certainly wholeheartedly agree that I should "love God with all my heart and love my neighbor as myself." And insofar as there is meaning to be found on this side of the divide, that is where it is found. I get glimpses of it when my children laugh, out of control, at something inexplicably hilarious, or stop to stare transfixed at a dragonfly alighting on a blade of grass; or when I see an old woman crossing a road, the road stretching out behind her like a metaphor, her crossing so slow, and yet somehow filled with the particularity of her life, heavy with memory; or when I am with my husband and some friends and we are caught up in conversation, and for a moment I am distracted and free, because I have forgotten to be myself, for that moment I am completely lost to myself and in love with the world.
But I see that as the doorway to the meaning of life, not the meaning of life itself. And also what you say about the bride of Christ - that is a goal the fulfillment of which will uncover much meaning, but the meaning is only partially and fleetingly apparent in the seeking. The meaning as we apprehend it now is no more indicative of reality than a shadow is indicative of a man. We live in shadows in this life, and someday it will be as if we are walking down a dark and lifeless street, deep in shadow, and indistinct, but accustomed to it, and to our solitude, when a door will be thrown open and sudden voices and bright lights will spill out in stark contrast to the black street, and the voices will call to us, as we come close, into the light, almost painful to us for we have been in the dark so long, and we will recognize people whom we have loved only they will be different, because we will love them even more than we ever did because we are seeing them for the first time, and they will say together, "Come in, we've been waiting for you... come in..." and for the first time in our existence we will know the difference between darkness and light, and our gratitude will be unspeakable.
I think we are all going to be very surprised when we meet God. I think we are all going to discover it is not quite how we imagined it to be. And the meaning will be quite deeper than anything we can fathom in this life. And we will have answers to why children die and why people destroy each other. And I think we will discover that every time we hurt someone it was like chopping off our own hand or foot with a hatchet.
But you know, most of the time the mystery doesn't bother me a bit, the unknowableness of it all. As Emerson said, "The benefit overran the merit on the first day."
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 1/29/2002 7:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc:
quote:
If hell is letting people go their own way (cf. C.S.Lewis, Problem of Pain and Great Divorce), then would it be morally objectionable for God to create a world which he foreknows will produce some beings who will to go his way (heaven) and some who most likely will go their own way? From the perspective of the redeemed, the fate of the lost is torment. From their own perspective, however, its exactly what they want.
"Herein is the condemnation of the world, that people LOVED DARKNESS rather than light." (Jn 3:19)
Hmmm...Doc, I'm not sure this makes sense to me. Do you think no one will be eternally damned who doesn't want to be? It seems to me there are plenty of people who "love darkness" that are not also jumping at the chance to spend eternity in torment. [I haven't gotten to this chapter in Satan and the Problem of Evil. . .feel free to refer me there.]
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/29/2002 10:17 PM (GMT -6) | | On Hell and Annihilationism
Meph As far as the hell thing, wouldn't this fall into the idea of a good parent who recognizes that SOMETIMES the choices of their children to "go their own way", regardless of how they personally feel about it, should NOT be allowed. If there would be any situation where I think this would apply, it would be with ETERNAL reprecussions and suffering.
Doc: I certainly feel the full force of your reasoning Meph. One would think that whatever the "limit" God puts on freedom, it would come short of allowing people to eternally suffer.
If God is all good, and if hell is indeed eternal conscious suffering, then I have to conclude either that a) its good that hell exists or b) the possibility of hell is unavoidable some other good that renders its possibility justifiable. My hunch is that, given the "principle of proportionality" (morally significant possibilities balance each other), the possibility of eternal conscious openness to God has to – by metaphysical necessity – be balanced by an eternal possibility of eternal closedness to God, just as our potentiality for temporal love is balanced by our potentiality for temporal evil.
What may help render this more plausible is the consideration, articulated masterfully by C.S.Lewis (Great Divorice), that the "hellishness" of hell is perspectival. The beings who suffer hell choose it, want it, and in a sick sense delight in it. To those who know life in God, it is unthinkably terrible. The condemnation of the world is that "people LOVE darkness rather than light" (Jn 3:19). Paul saw God "giving over" the Romans to do WHATEVER THEY WANT as the horrifying damning wrath of God (Rom. 1:20ff). The Romans no doubt enjoyed the new found freedom from conviction. They were, of course, absolutely miserable, but in a way that came on them from within, by their choice, rather than from without.
On the other hand, if annihilationism is embraced as true, the problem you’re posing is lessen still further. I see no problems whatsoever in God creating multitudes of free agents knowing that many of them will end up being judged, suffering retributive judgement to the extent it is deserved, and then "perishing." Indeed, if annihilationism is true, I don’t think it would be morally objectionable if the vast majority of people end up choosing to perish rather than accept everlasting life (though I would still hope, pray, and work for this NOT being the case, since every life is infinitely valuable). Indeed, this prospect seems to correspond with what we observe in nature. 3 million sperm are ejected, and yet (ordinarily) only one can successfully reach the ovum. Most species in the animal kingdom hatch or give birth to multitudes of babies, which is "fortunate," for only a few survive to adulthood.
Either way – whether we accept the principle of proportionality and C.S.Lewis’ idea on hell, or whether we accept annihilationism – I think the problem your posing is manageable.
I think the different "takes" you and I have on this issue, Meph, are, at bottom, that because I hold to the perfect goodness of God, I feel the need to postulate a framework in which hell makes sense. God IS the "good parent." If I understand you correctly, you don’t feel as much a need to do this. You know, the whole "omnibenevolence" thing. (I’m thinking here especially of your statement several weeks ago on a thread that you’d have no problem with God predestining multitudes to eternal suffering.)
BJS: Doc, I'm not sure this makes sense to me. Do you think no one will be eternally damned who doesn't want to be?
Doc: Yes. I’m not saying they like the consequences of being there, anymore than an alcoholic likes all the consequeces of their alchoholism. But they do choose it.
Blessings
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/29/2002 10:28 PM (GMT -6) | | On Post-Mortem Development
Warning: I inserted a several page exert from Satan and the Problem of Evil in this posting. It outlines my theological justification for believing that some people are given a chance to embrace or reject Christ after death. If this isn't a topic that interests you, just scan down to the next posting. It will take time, but I shall eventually recover the emotional assault this will cause me.
Meph (in response to my endorsement of "post-mortem evangelism") Doc, ARE YOU FOR REAL???? Surely you recognize that this is COMPLETELY extra-biblical? You may as well postulate a "purgatory"! Hmmm... Again, I see this as another "hope" that is not adequately grounded in Scripture. Not solid at all.
Doc: I grant that the view is extra-biblical. But so is every opinion on what happens to babies, the mentally incapacitated, and everyone else who was prevented from being able to resolve their eternal destinies prior to death. The Bible just doesn't offer a decisive perspecdtive on this topic. In my opinion, the post-mortem option has the most going for it logically (if one embraces the free will defense) and biblically (providing other principles that lead to this conclusion). You’ve (Meph) probably already read it, but for the sake of others who may be interested, here’s the appendix in Satan and the Problem of Evil
Post-Mortem Evangelism:
A central feature of the trinitiarian warfare theodicy is the conviction that love must be freely chosen. While this perspective is the key to understanding the warfare worldview of Scripture and the war torn nature of God’s creation, it also raises a difficult question. What happens to those who die with having a chance to resolve themselves either for or against God’s love?
This question is sometimes discussed in terms of what becomes of unevangelized people. While this is an important issue, it is not the one I am presently concerned with. The trinitarian warfare theodicy does not add anything to the stipula-tion, shared by all Arminians, that the final destiny of unevangelized people must be freely chosen by them, not determined by divine decree. The issue I wish to address has to do with the fate of humans who for whatever reasons did not arrive at the point where they could make any free decision regarding their eternal destiny. More specifically, what becomes of persons who died in infancy or were mentally challenged to the point of being incapable of making morally responsible decisions in this probational period? This is an important question for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact that it includes a significant percentage of people who have ever been born.
Post-Mortem Developments and the Free Will Defense.
Though the point is rarely made and even less frequently discussed, the fate of infants and mentally incapacitated people is crucial to anyone who holds to a freewill defense. The most fundamental claim of this defense is that love requires choice and choice entails the possibility of evil. But if love indeed requires choice, and if heaven is defined as participating in God’s love, then it follows by logical necessity that people who never made a choice for love can’t participate in heaven, regardless of why it is that they did not, our could not, make that choice. Nor can such individuals participate in hell, for the state of rejecting love also must be chosen.
Most contemporary Christians assume that all deceased infants and mentally incapaci-tated persons automatically go to heaven. But this assumption undermines the free will defense. The concep-tion of self-determining freedom as a precondition for love only explains the reality of evil in the world if it is a necessary precondition and is therefore applied universally to all persons—including infants and men-tally incapacitated people.
Hence, though I would never propose that this conclusion be regarded as anything more than speculation, I argue that those who hold to the free will defense should logically consider the possibility that those who were unable to responsibly and decisively choose for or against God’s Kingdom before death must somehow be given an opportunity to do so after death. This view is often called the "future probation"* or "probation after death" position.
Given the current prevalence of the free will defense, it is somewhat surprising that the concept of future probation is rarely given serious consideration among evangelicals. The central reason for this, I suspect, is that Scripture does not explicitly address this matter. And where Scripture is silent, conservative evangelicals often assume we must also remain silent. The reverence for the authority of Scripture embodied in this position is laudable. But three considerations reveal it to be somewhat misguided in this case.
The Prevalence of Opinions.
First, in point of fact, most contemporary Christians are not silent on this issue. It’s difficult not to hold an opinion about a topic that is this practically important. As noted above, most contemporary Christians assume that all infants and mentally incapaci-tated persons automatically go to heaven. There is no explicit scriptural support for this position, however, any more than there is for any other option. What is more, Christians rarely held this view until the modern period. Whatever else may be said about the future probation position con-cerning babies and mentally incapacitated persons, therefore, it should not be ruled out simply on the grounds that there is no explicit support for it in Scripture.
The Bible and Church Theology.
Second, the Church has historically been willing to not only repeat what Scripture explicitly says but to also develop what Scripture logically implies. Were this not the case we would not have the doctrines of the Trinity or Incarnation. Every doctrine of the Church and every conviction individual believers hold, is the result of going one step beyond Scripture to arrive at a coherent way of making sense out of Scripture.
Since this issue is not explicitly addressed in Scripture, we must draw conclusions that are rooted in other truths that are rooted in Scripture. The destiny of infants and the triunity of God are on a par in this matter.
The Destiny of Babies in Church History.
Third, the Church has historically entertained various positions about the fate of deceased babies (the fate of mentally incapacitated per-sons was rarely addressed). Since Scripture is largely silent on the matter, theologians had to struggle with this issue on the basis of other principles they believed to be true.
Hence, for example, on the basis of a particular view of original sin and an understanding of baptism as necessary to wash away sin, the pre-vailing opinion from Augustine through the Medieval Period was that baptized babies go to heaven while unbaptized babies go to hell. In the light of a renewed appreciation of the character of God revealed throughout Scripture, however, many in the late Middle Ages softened this view by suggesting that unbaptized babies go to "limbo," a sort of middle ground between heaven and hell. On the basis of their understanding of covenantal relationships many Christians from the late Middle Ages on have held that the fate of babies was connected to the faith or unbelief of their parents, not their own baptism. Rooted in a particular understanding of divine election, Reformed theologians have traditionally held that the fate of babies was decided in the same way as the fate of adults. Elect babies are predestined to salvation: non-elect babies are not.
The current pervasive view among western Christians differs from all of these traditional positions, as noted earlier. Rooted in a robust confidence in the universality of God’s love and (sometimes) a peculiar modern sentimentalism about the inherent goodness of humans, all babies and mentally incapacitated per-sons are believed to automatically go to heaven.
We see that the Church has always felt the need to speculate on the fate of babies, because under-standing this issue is important for arriving at a coherent Christian world-view. Hence, whatever criticisms might be raised against the possibility of a future probation for deceased babies or mentally incapacitated persons, the criticism that it is not explic-itly stated in Scripture cannot be one of them.
Neither can this view be legitimately criticized for being non-traditional. As we have just seen, there is no standard view on this subject in Church history. Indeed, in terms of being rooted within Church tradition the future probation position fairs better than the modern prevailing sentiment. Though it was never widely embraced, the view has had its occasional supporters, both Protes-tants and Catholics, from the fourth century up to the present.
I thus contend that the view that certain individuals shall somehow be given a post-mortem opportunity to accept or reject Christ must stand or fall on the basis of whether or not one accepts the argument that love and moral responsibility require choice. If this is indeed a metaphysical truth, than people who have not chosen must somehow be given the opportunity to do so.
Incomplete Processes and the Future Probation
While we have admitted that Scrip-ture does not explicitly address the fate of infants or mentally incapacitated people, it is nevertheless significant to note that Scripture does not contradict this perspective. Indeed, while many contemporary Pro-testants assume that the Bible teaches that every person immedi-ately enters heaven or hell after death – a view that would obviously rule out any future probation – Scripture hints that things may not be this simple.
For example, several familiar passages of Scripture could be understood to teach that certain people were given the chance to decide to follow Christ after death (1 Pet. 3:18–20; 4:6; Eph. 4:8–10, Rom. 10:7). Other texts suggest that believers whose sanctification is not completed in this life may somehow be completed and made fit for the Kingdom of God in the next. Several of Christ’s teachings seem to point in this direction. One example must suffice. On the need to quickly reconcile with brothers and sisters, Jesus says:
Come to terms quickly with your accuser… or your accuser will hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny (Matt. 5:25–26).
Jesus is addressing disciples here—otherwise he could never give people hope of "getting out" after they’ve paid the "last penny." I don’t believe Jesus is literally saying that the person pays for their sin during this time, as though this person is atoning for their sin in "purgatory." Scripture is clear that Christ’s sacrifice alone atones for sin, and it is sufficient for all sin (Rom. 3:21–25; Heb. 12:17, 9:27–28; 1 John 2:2, 4:10). His point may rather be that we either make things right now or we get them made right later. And getting them right later is going to take time.
In other words, this passage suggests that sanctification is not optional for disciples. If it doesn’t happen now, it will later. We are not told about when or how this completion shall take place, but we are clearly taught that all believers will appear before the Judg-ment Seat of Christ, and it may be that this completion process is part of this judgment (Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10). Unlike the White Throne Judgment , this judgment is for believers and is remedial rather than retributive. Here, everything in a believer’s life ministry that was not "built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ" is burned up with "fire." Paul writes:
size=2]…the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire (1 Cor. 3:13–14).[/size=2]
Paul seems to be suggesting that everything that is not consistent with Christ’s Lordship will be burned up. We do not take garbage into the kingdom. As a majority of Church fathers and mothers prior to the Reformation taught, if indeed nothing unclean can enter the Kingdom of God (Rev. 21:27, 22:14–15), then the refining of the believer must be completed before they enter into heaven.
This teaching on the believer’s judgment in no way compromises the scriptural truth that Christ’s death is sufficient for our righteousness before God or that we are saved exclusively by God’s grace. God’s chastisements which refine our character in this life are done out of love and do not compromise our salvation by grace (Heb. 12:5–6; Rev. 3:19). Why think differently if similar refining chastisements occur after death before the Judgement Seat of Christ? It’s just a matter of completing then what was left undone now.
How does all this apply to the issue of the fate of babies and mentally incapacitated persons? It suggests that there is some prece-dent in Scrip-ture for suggesting that certain processes that are incomplete at death are completed after death. If this is true of people who die before their sanctification is complete, might something like this be true of people who die before their self-determination for or against Christ is complete?
This conclusion is of course highly speculative and must be developed tentatively. The worst that can be said about it is that it has no more explicit rooting in Scripture and is thus no more speculative than any other position. In the end, the issue must be decided on other grounds. So far as I can see, this view is the only one consistent with the understanding that love must be freely chosen, and thus with a free will defense.
----------------
Blessings
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/29/2002 10:30 PM (GMT -6) | | A few other miscellanious responses
Meph (on the difference between "Libertarian Free Will" and Power of Contrary Choice [or "power of volition"). The main difference between the LFW and the power of volition is simply that LFW is indeterministic as the highest levels of reality whereas the power of volition is not. See, on OUR LEVEL OF EXISTENCE, libertarian free will and the power of volition are INDISTINGUISHABLE. (I keep bringing this up) Speaking theologically, the ONLY being that the two would any real difference to is God…. If one wants to assert that God WANTED beings who were completely ontologically distinct from himself that he could have reciprocal activities ON HIS LEVEL, then one has to assert LFW. No ifs, ands, or butts. However...and this is important...If one DOES NOT FIND IT THAT IMPORTANT TO GOD for him to have created the beings mentioned above, then the "power of volition" would be JUST fine!!!
Doc: Then what you mean by "Power of Volition" is "compatiblistic freedom." Our freedom is compatible with God (on a different "level" of existence) determining us. But this, then, is NOT "power of contrary choice." If God determines all, we may have the APPEARANCE of the ability to choose otherwise, but in fact we do not. In philosophical circles, the "power of contrary choice" is generally used as identical with libertarian free will: it is an ontological, not a phenomenological, category.
Semeia (on the meaning of life): I see your point about the ultimate meaning of life outrunning what we anticipated. But it seems you agree that the meaning (purpose, ultimate value, etc.) of your life NOW is to love God and neighbor with all and to be and live out the bride of Christ. My only question was about what you are "searching" for? Perhaps you meant simply that you aspire to explore the endless depths of this meaning throughout your life.
'm still wondering about its significance, though (apart from being a good OV shield against Middle knowledge and Ware's 'hand-wringing-God' criticisms)...
All for now
Loving ya
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 1/30/2002 3:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc:
quote:
I thus contend that the view that certain individuals shall somehow be given a post-mortem opportunity to accept or reject Christ must stand or fall on the basis of whether or not one accepts the argument that love and moral responsibility require choice. If this is indeed a metaphysical truth, than people who have not chosen must somehow be given the opportunity to do so.
This is so encouraging to me! I believe what you wrote is the best way for me to handle God's infinite love. I have struggled to accept that people who, for whatever reason, do not accept Christ before death definitely go to hell. This has NOT felt comfortable for me to hold to and therefore your proposal above puts some concreteness to what I personally believe.
We just had a test on the "laws and ethics in counseling" One part that is important to remember when working with clients is that the client be able to make good decisions regarding informed consent. In making the decision to assent the client must be COMPETENT, the choice must be VOLUNTARY, and based on SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE in knowing what they are consenting to. Perhaps this is how Christ deals with each individual. Perhaps sometimes this must be done AFTER the person has died -- at the last breath of life when all truth is revealed?
Doc, your ideas offered me hope and encouragement regarding this issue.
Thanks,
trosie
"Sometimes when your heart breaks God is the only one who can put it together again." Author Unknown
Edited by - trosie on 01/30/2002 09:02:34 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 1/30/2002 4:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc said: I see your point about the ultimate meaning of life outrunning what we anticipated. But it seems you agree that the meaning (purpose, ultimate value, etc.) of your life NOW is to love God and neighbor with all and to be and live out the bride of Christ. My only question was about what you are "searching" for? Perhaps you meant simply that you aspire to explore the endless depths of this meaning throughout your life.
Semeia: Purpose and meaning are two completely different things.
What it comes down to is that I don't see it at all as simply as you want to state it. For example, in what way is "Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself" and "becoming the bride of Christ" applicable as a "meaning of life" for a small child who is tortured and killed by an abusive parent? Or for a schizophrenic who has lost their ability to even think clearly about such things? Or for a baby who dies of aids before her first birthday?
As soon as I think about it at all, I see that it takes a certain amount of privilege and luck to even be at a place to think about the meaning of life in such a way. And it's true, I have that privilege and luck, and I can see that for my own life that view of meaning HAS some meaning. But I also see that it is a VERY partial view. Any complete meaning of life HAS to take into account the tortured baby, and the endless variety of other suffering in the world. (Here's another one: some people have a genetic predisposition to depression, that makes it almost impossible for them to experience joy in life. They didn't "choose" this depression - although sometimes people DO choose depression - and yet it colors all their thoughts and experience of the world - including sometimes their love of God and love of neighbor.)
So, is "love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself" the meaning of life for the tortured baby? I don't see how it could be. So in a world where we have tortured babies, there must be more meaning than that. There is something deeper and broader that God knows makes this creation worth that risk. It seems like hubris to suggest that we know what that is. It seems like hubris to look at the suffering in the world and claim to know the meaning of life, other than to speak for ourselves. It is quite alright for Anne Frank to discover meaning for herself even in the midst of one of the worst horrors to befall mankind. But it would be quite inappropriate for us to say from our safe historical distance what that meaning "should" be.
To say that the meaning of life is to love God with all our heart and love our neighbor as ourself is to say that the meaning of life has to do with our DOING. Which then of course excludes from that meaning even those who are unable to "DO" based on unchosen circumstances.
If I were going to make any guesses about it, I would say that the meaning of life has more to do with the fact that God loves US - and that therefore the meaning of life has to do with BEING rather than DOING. That view gives the tortured baby as much meaning as those fortunate enough to be at a place to ponder the meaning of life.
So what am I searching for? A connection with God that helps me to understand the suffering all around me. And the meaning of life.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 1/30/2002 9:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Trosie said:
quote:
This is so encouraging to me! I believe what you wrote is the best way for me to handle God's infinite love. I have struggled to accept that people who, for whatever reason, do not accept Christ before death definitely go to hell. This has NOT felt comfortable for me to hold to and therefore your proposal above puts some concreteness to what I personally believe.
Here here! I agree. This was excellent! And I might add brave, logical, faithful, inspiring....yeah, all that.
Appreciated this, thanks for posting it...now I just need to get my hands on that book.
~Miss E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 1/30/2002 11:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Empiress:
quote:
Appreciated this, thanks for posting it...now I just need to get my hands on that book
Hey, I just got my hands on one! Maybe we could start a thread to discuss this book as we read through it? What do you think?
trosie
"Sometimes when your heart breaks God is the only one who can put it together again." Author Unknown | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/30/2002 11:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc,
I can recognize the "altar call" tradition on the surface of what you wrote. It has its appeal.
"I thus contend that the view that certain individuals
shall somehow be given a post-mortem opportunity to accept
or reject Christ . . ."
But maybe you have more buried beneath that surface. I'll have to go back and give it a more careful read.
What caught my attention in this veneer is its historical tracings back through three Reformation to the "will based" philosophical influences that entered Europe through Cordoba, etc. (you might know history much better than I, I've been facilitated by some reporting by an expatriate Professor Emeriti of Languages at the Berlin Polytechnic (an Evangelical convert to ROCOR who published a chart that said:
ORTHODOXY : .BEING ....../ .Ontology....... / .Energization / Effectuating
PAPACY : ........INTELLECT / .Epistemology / .Vision......... / Knowledge
REFORMERS : .WILL......... / .Theletism...... / .Hearing....... / Volition
So, Doc, just for the exercise, when I read it again, I'll be looking for things that apply to: Ontology, Energization, Effectuating...
Back to reading!
Edited by - potonwheel on 01/31/2002 10:35:36 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 1/30/2002 5:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Trosie asked:
quote:
Hey, I just got my hands on one! Maybe we could start a thread to discuss this book as we read through it? What do you think?
I think that's a great idea! I'd be very interested in that. I wonder who all would be interested...maybe we could start a new thread inviting people. Uh...first I gotta get the book!
~Miss E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 1/30/2002 5:56 PM (GMT -6) | | That's a great idea, Trosie. I would really enjoy actually going through a book with everyone. It might help keep us on track (yeah, right. . .), and I think I would learn much!
Empiress, did Amazon.com not carry the book?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 1/30/2002 6:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Semeia
quote:
So what am I searching for? A connection with God that helps me to understand the suffering all around me. And the meaning of life
For some reason this puts me in the mood to hear some poetry and deep philosophical expressions.
Here's something I read in the book Man's Search for Meaning
"The crowning experience of all, for the homecoming man, is the wonderful feeling that, after all he has suffered, there is nothing he need fear any more -- except his God."
~Miss E:
I am hoping you will get your hands on a copy of Satan and the Problem of Evil soon so we can start that thread
Blessings,
trosie
"Sometimes when your heart breaks God is the only one who can put it together again." Author Unknown
Edited by - trosie on 01/30/2002 11:07:30 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 1/30/2002 6:51 PM (GMT -6) | | BJS and Trosie...
I'm breaking down and purchasing it from the evil Seattle empire of Amazon.com right now. It should get here soon as I live just down the road from Amazon. (I try to support my independent local bookstores when I can.)
Yay! This should be good.
~Miss E
| | Back to Top | | |
| 167 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:50 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 |
|
|