 |
 | 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/11/2004 8:58 AM (GMT -6) |   | "Is OT Necessary to Solve The Problem of Evil?"
This may be a dumb question -- and I'm not reading slowly. But do you mean "OT" (Old Testement) or "OV"? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/11/2004 9:24 AM (GMT -6) | | POW: This may be a dumb question -- and I'm not reading slowly. But do you mean "OT" (Old Testement) or "OV"?
Tom: The question is IN the post: Can the Problem of Evil be solved without libertarian free will?
Cepoteet, you do recognize that the there are adherents of libertarian free will who are not open theists, right? So your question doesn't really pertain specifically to the open view, right? Just wanting to understand.
As far as I am able to understand, libertarian free will is necessary to moral responsibilty. No such freedom, no accountability--as far as I'm able to understand.
By the way, can you define the problem of evil as far as you undertand it? I wouldn't think there would be a problem given your determinism. God unconditionally determines it all, so what's the problem from your view?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/11/2004 10:24 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/13/2004 5:36 AM (GMT -6) | | cepoteet: I agree that some measure of freedom aids in answering the question, but even if we didn't it wouldn't matter to God...(…with or without freedom, God can do as He pleases).
Tom: If our freedom is unimportant to what God can and can’t do, then what, pray tell Chris, “aid” does affirming any kind of freedom give in answering questions surrounding the problem of evil? You can’t say affirming some measure of freedom REALLY DOES help solve the problem and also affirm that God can do as he pleases whether or not we have any freedom at all.
Now, I’m perfectly happy to agree that God can DO as he PLEASES. The question, however, is not this. It is rather: Can God please to do some of the things we attribute to him, like unconditionally determining all our choices—evil ones included—and justly hold us accountable for those choices?
I think there are a lot of things God can’t please to do. He can’t please to commit suicide or otherwise will himself out of existence, or be tempted to sin, or tempt to sin (James), or forsake himself (Paul). The list can go on. So, Chris, it’s just not helpful to say God can “do whatever he pleases” if the debate regards what sorts of things God can and cannot “please to do.”
cepoteet: The greater question is: Is the problem of evil really a problem at all? Why is it so terribly hard to imagine that God does foreordain (but yet is not responsible for) evil. The question I always ask to someone who throws that at me is (and usually during evangelism is): well, why should a wrathful God allow anyone the chance for redemption?
Tom: This is so very simple, and I have zero expectation of your embracing it. But it’s more than terribly hard for many of us to imagine God unconditionally foreordaining evil, Chris. It’s really impossible. Now, God doesn’t HAVE to allow anyone a chance for redemption. Sure. That’s grace. But it makes sense to say this is grace so long as the one redeeming us in grace is NOT ALSO the same one unconditionally predetermining all our evil from which he then rescues SOME. That just empties the notions of grace and accountability of any meaning for the simple reason that we’ve no analogous means of appropriating the notions of grace, redemption, and love, under THOSE circumstances. The point is: God’s not owing anyone redemption and grace does NOT make sense of God’s having unconditionally preordained all things, evil included.
It also doesn't follow that because NONE deserve a chance at redemption that if God decides offer it he must only offer it to some. He can just as easily offer it to all, and given the difficulties of imagining God's unconditionally determining all to sin but only some to redemption, while condemning those who are not redeemed for not accepting this offer (which is precisely what God unconditionally determined them to do--go figure), and given those passages that speak of God's will for "all" to be saved, I'm easily inclined to conclude God does want everybody saved and does offer salvation to all.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 12/13/2004 2:17 PM (GMT -6) | | It also sounds like "sound" parenting to take your only son and beat him half to death and then have him hung on a cross for a bunch of pitiful sinners that deserve sin, death, and the very pits of hell. And not only to kill him, but also to take pleasure in his death, having that be your will from before the world began. Perhaps we should slap some handcuffs on God, tell Him He's a childabuser and throw the book at Him... or not.
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/14/2004 2:43 AM (GMT -6) | | borg: It also sounds like "sound" parenting to take your only son and beat him half to death and then have him hung on a cross for a bunch of pitiful sinners that deserve sin, death, and the very pits of hell.
Tom: Yes, this does make sense given the circumstances and purposes under and for which Christ was offered. Don't forget that Christ offered himself. The father did not abuse his son against his will. So on your view maybe you should slap the cuffs on Jesus as well for being a masachist. Really, borg, it's not difficult to make sense of a father and son agreeing together that the son will give his life for all those pitiful sinners that deserve hell. That's just love. Amazing, yes. Beyond comprehension, yes. But not meaningless as is "unconditioally predetermined morally accountable behavior."
Keep trying,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
orphan child
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 68
| Posted 12/14/2004 4:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
Why does the bible state that Jesus leads the captive into captivity?
Jesus sets the captives free.
How they became captive--
Romans 1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
illegitimate child (now orphaned) of Miss Manners (now deceased) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lomman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 14
| Posted 12/15/2004 6:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Adam Clarke had this to say on the meaning of this disputed verse:
"The whole of this verse, as it stands in the psalm, seems to refer to a military triumph. Take the following paraphrase: Thou hast ascended on high: the conqueror was placed in a very elevated chariot. Thou hast led captivity captive: the conquered kings and generals were usually bound behind the chariot of the conqueror, to grace the triumph. Thou host received gifts for (Paul, given gifts unto) men: at such times the conqueror was wont to throw money among the crowd. Even to the rebellious: those who had fought against him now submit unto him, and share his munificence; for it is the property of a hero to be generous. That the Lord God might dwell among them: the conqueror being now come to fix his abode in the conquered provinces, and subdue the people to his laws."
Wesley similarly notes that the verse "alludes to the custom of ancient conquerors, who led those they had conquered in chains after them. And, as they also used to give donatives to the people, at their return from victory, so he gave gifts to men..."
So, orphan may be correct in saying that it refers to the spiritual victory over the rebellious angelic powers that accused us before God "day and night." Except, "the host of captives being led captive" may refer not to human prisoners being set free, but to the enemies themselves, who were defeated in principle and no longer have any grounds for accusations against those who are in Christ Jesus (the verse seems to contrast the captives with the men who are given gifts as a result of the captivity). We know that all enemies are not yet under Christ's feet, but this verse may be speaking figuratively of their defeat in principle which Christ won for us, as Colossians refers to. Just my thoughts.
Lomman
"He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to promote justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" Micah 6:8
| | Back to Top | | |
| 30 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:14 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 |
|
|