 |
| 
Joe McClure
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 2
| Posted 3/28/2005 9:14 PM (GMT -6) |   | William Hasker has argued that if God didn't permit gratuitous evil then morality would be undermined.
Is anyone familiar with other christian philosophers who defend an argument like Hasker's? I'm aware that Michael Peterson makes a somewhat similar argument in his Evil and the Christian God but he doesn't go into the kind of depth that Hasker does. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Joe McClure
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 2
| Posted 3/29/2005 8:16 AM (GMT -6) | | It was a Christmas gift from my wife.
Most of the essays have appeared before but there are a few new ones:
"Can God Permit 'Just Enough' Evil"
"The Sceptical Solution to the Problem of Evil"
"Antinomies of Divine Providence" (I think this one hasn't appeared before. I'm not sure.)
and
"The Freedom and Goodness of God"
It's an excellent collection though. | | Back to Top | | |
|
MattBrown
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 74
| Posted 4/11/2005 11:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Reader.
I think to compare our state and capabilities in the here and now, in the testing ground of today, to our state and capabilities in our glorification bodies in the eternity future is comparing apples to oranges.
My take is that in both cases we have free will and thus the capacity to sin. In the here and now we will chose to sin, but for one reason or another in the glorification body we will chose not to sin. Perhaps because now it is based all on faith and trust in an absentee Lord, but then it will be based on the overwhelming reality of the presence of God and his glory.
Who knows, maybe like the fallen angels some humans who get glorification bodies will also chose to sin and fall. But that is speculation.
Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. - Nietzsche | | Back to Top | | |
|
MattBrown
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 74
| Posted 4/11/2005 11:58 AM (GMT -6) | | | Muz wrote: (Maybe the question then becomes when did God allow evil to be possible? Upon His decree in creating man with a free will, or at the moment each decision is made?)
MattBrown responds: I always figured it was all before creation, when he decided to create, to share his love, and offer freedom for the prospect of relationship. The allowance of evil as a possibility comes as a natural consequence from these, all before the ball gets rolling in the beginning.
Curiously, why would you say it may be a moment by moment (action by action) decision?
Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. - Nietzsche | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/11/2005 5:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Reader: As I understand it, when we are raised and given resurrected bodies, we will no longer sin at all. I have looked forward with hope and anticipation to that promise.
Tom: I also!
Reader: If I look at what is being proposed, I would cease being a "moral creature" at that time as well? This seems flawed to me in that I understand that I will still have "free will" in my glorified body and yet never sin again. How do you deal with this?
Tom: If the inability to sin is “given” to us, apart from any libertarian choice on our part, then it’s bogus I think. We wouldn’t be moral creatures in that case. But if the inability to sin is, over time, during this life, “chosen” by us in the libertarian sense, then I think that’s a good deal. There’s nothing about the mere “state” of being compatibilistically free that’s self-contradictory. That’s not our beef with theological compatibilism. It’s the claim that God unconditionally determines our choices, that we never had a libertarian say so in determining the orientation (for good or for evil) which our compatibilism takes. So libertarian free can and I think does become compatibilistic free will over time. We choose the sort of character which in turn determines the character of our choices. Heaven seals that journey for those who freely pursue good. Hell seals it for those who freely pursue evil.
I do think the future of heaven remains partly open. Sahid I think asked about this. Being compatibilistically good (because of having chosen to become compatibilistically good) in heaven doesn’t have to mean God THEN gets to determine all our choices, or that we’ll all be making the exact same choices. In other words, heaven won’t be the sort of unconditionally determined compatibilistic existence that compatibilists claim is the case NOW. It only needs to be the case that we’ll make compatibilistic, or characteristically, good and loving choices. But whose to say which good choices, among a selection of good choices, we’ll make? I think that’s open. Will I praise God by jumping and shouting in front of the throne? Or will I bow quietly? Will I high-five the saints? Or will I serve them in some way? Will I love someone by painting them a picture? Or by baking them a cake? There’s enough creativity in goodness and love to make a compatibilistically good future an OPEN future.
What d'ya think?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/12/2005 8:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Muz: Better question: Was God not a moral creature before creation?
Tom: Same answer. God is who and what he is before creation, and that ‘who’ and ‘what’ don’t answer to some other higher ‘what’ (i.e., some higher ethical standard). I didn’t want to suggest that God is not a moral creature or that it’s improper to think of his actions as being good and right. It just seems to me that his actions are good in the sense that they define what good is, and not in the sense that they conform to some standard of good that God keeps.
Make sense? What d'yall think?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/14/2005 7:53 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Jeff: maybe we can qualify what we mean by God being moral. Maybe it just means that God will suffer for the sake of another, even IF He can never do wrong. In that sense, he differs from us. Conceivable?
Tom: I’m not following ya, Jeff. God is ‘moral’ simply because he’s willing to suffer for another even if God can do no wrong? Yeah, God suffers for us. For sure. How’s that contribute to defining God as moral?
I can’t say God stands in the relation of being ‘morally obliged to...’. The words won’t come out of my mouth. None of what we need to make sense of this is available: Who is God obliged to? If God doesn’t keep his moral obligations (which possibility is entailed by standing in such a relation) who or what enforces the consequences on God? If the consequences of God's sinning (God’s dying, as John pointed out) are inconceivable, and they are, then I don’t find the antecedent (God’s failing to fulfill his moral obligations) conceivable either. If God exists necessarily, then he cannot fail to exist, in which case there’s no conceivable state of affairs that could possibly constitute his not existing. If God exists necessarily, then any state of affairs that includes or leads to God’s non-existence (like God’s sinning) must necessarily fail to obtain. It’s that simple.
I think God is moral in the sense that he is ‘morally obliging’. But John’s fear that this would amount to ‘might is right’ just doesn’t follow. It doesn’t follow that if God is ‘morally obliging’ and not ‘morally obliged’ that God possesses a character that’s either amoral or morally ambivalent or arbitrary.
Thoughts?
Tom Post Edited (TGB) : 4/14/2005 11:03:54 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/14/2005 4:39 PM (GMT -6) | | |
I contended some time ago on this board that God does not exist within an existential moral sphere. His sphere of existence does not include a moral compass. God is not in moral trinitarian relationship with Himself, as in, "We, as Trinity, are all good, aren't we. We are not bad, but good." Further, were none of us to know about sin (were we still an a pre-fall environment), none of us would have occasion to say, "You know, God sure is good, isn't He. He never does anything wrong."
Of Himself, God never has to say, "I'm morally good," as if He could compare Himself to something or someone else within HIS ontology. He cannot, for only He exists within His sphere. However, when God has to compare Himself to us IN RELATIONSHIP WITH US (in order to make the point about our moral sphere of existence), He then must say, "I am morally good and mankind is not," for He has stepped into our sphere of existence where moral corruption contributes to our definition of existence.
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in Genesis conveys an ability for mankind to enter into the knowledge that God has about morality—the knowledge of such being the maker or breaker of relationship between God and man. Man was not created to handle the knowledge and function within it, but he was given the freedom to choose for Self if he so desired. Such knowledge can only lead to dispair, however. But in that love is the deepest expression of freedom, choosing between spheres of existence in which to reside is the highest expression of freedom. (This option was removed after the Fall but restored in the Christ event.)
Just because God knows about morality does not mean He exists within it's framework (knowledge of X does not ontologically associate one with X). What this means, then, is that God's existence does not have to be defined or qualified by an existential moral premise or conclusion in regard to a good nature He must possess.
If, however, God were to exist within the sphere of morality, He must either be ontologically incapable (excluded from the capability) of sinning, which seems a contradiction to being ontologically within the moral sphere, or He is able to always choose against moral corruption, in which case it would be possible for God to sin; He just chooses not to. That is not acceptable either. It stands, then, that God is not good in the moral sense unless He is compared to that which is existentially morally based.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/15/2005 8:31 AM (GMT -6) | |
Selah said...Tom: "But if the inability to sin is, over time, during this life, “chosen” by us in the libertarian sense, then I think that’s a good deal. There’s nothing about the mere “state” of being compatibilistically free that’s self-contradictory. That’s not our beef with theological compatibilism. It’s the claim that God unconditionally determines our choices, that we never had a libertarian say so in determining the orientation (for good or for evil) which our compatibilism takes. So libertarian free can and I think does become compatibilistic free will over time. We choose the sort of character which in turn determines the character of our choices. Heaven seals that journey for those who freely pursue good. Hell seals it for those who freely pursue evil." selah: What do I think? I think you're right :0) Our "OVER TIME" choices solidify our character...for good or evil. Really, this is the only "solution" that neurologically,psychologically, and theologically makes sense to me! Blessings and love, selah
Ditto, please allow me to toss my "hat" into this camp.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/15/2005 10:03 AM (GMT -6) | |
Starkman said...
I contended some time ago on this board that God does not exist within an existential moral sphere. His sphere of existence does not include a moral compass. God is not in moral trinitarian relationship with Himself, as in, "We, as Trinity, are all good, aren't we. We are not bad, but good."
If it is true that God does not exist within an existential moral sphere (which I don't agree with at all), then how do we explain such statements by Jesus as:
John 17:26 I made your name known to them, and I will make it known, so that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.’
Love is nothing, if not a moral quality.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
| 36 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:03 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 |
|
|