ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[themuzicman]

It is not a stretch at all to say that God allows evil to achieve a greater good. It is, in fact, the only possible moral justification for it.

Incorrect. God may allow evil to be perpetrated upon sinners as an element of His just nature. But that would mean that God had no hand in the commission of that evil, something only OVT can claim.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

No, I really didn't there was nothing else in the fridge. Of course I could have put on my shoes and coat and went out for fast food. The point is, I was determined to eat pizza, not go out. Was there a choice? I grant that there was a hypothetical, but again, I believe it was rather deterministic that I'd eat pizza (Canadian bacon/pineapple- it was good). I don't have a problem with a script as much as you seem to. I understand that you emphasize LFW and I, EDF.

And, as a fellow incompatiblist, I do appreciate the logical consistency of your position.

With pizza, it is really hard to get to the black and white of the discussion. I believe God was pleased with the choice for I didn't allow it to rot. I took care of my temple etc.

I'm not referring specifically to black and white, but to the ramifications of determinism for the major concepts of sin and salvation in Scripture.

In the end, I don't think it matters for our discussion if I had freewill to do so or had no choice. It really isn't a big enough issue to have us at odds. Rather, it is when we are discussing election and the eternality of choice that it elevates but is also a bit easier to see starkly. I believe a director does have responsibility over his film. He isn't judged until the final product, but I believe God to know exactly as if He is watching our lives all unfold again in hindsight.

And, thus, you step squarely into the problem God being the cause of evil. How do you answer a mother whose daughter has been raped and murdered? God did it for good?

This not to explain a theological stance as necessity, but rather how I see who He is and what is innate in His character. I see EDF more naturally rendered in scripture and OV explanations of those passages as forced rather than a natural read.

However, the passages you are concerned about are not concerned with EDF and LFW, so you're trying to get something out of a passage that isn't speaking to you.

OTOH, there are huge problems with determinism in passages that clearly and directly put the onus upon individuals to make free will choices, and huge problems with passages where God judges people who have sinned against Him, and God hands out wrath.

These,rather than Peter's denial, Jonah in Nineveh, Judas' rebellion, are far less central to theology and Christian theology than wrath, faith, and justification. You seem to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.

You recognize that I see no contradiction between EDF and our responsibility.

I have yet to see a definition of both that allows no contradiction.

In part, OV holds to a similar stance regardless. God still allows us to write our script where we are responsible for the product of our lives. I cannot point to the mechanism of His character that allows EDF, but I believe the scriptures we bring to the table support EDF. In both of our positions, God knows our choices and allows us to make the poor ones. I'm not sure that 'when' is as huge of a disagreement when the why's and how's are still left for both of us to try and address.

I thought you were an incompatiblist. Only someone with free will can "write their own script." I thought this was a movie, where God directed all the actions.

How important is LFW really? If you didn't actually have it, would you be troubled?

I would seriously question major core portions of the gospel, including justification and God's goodness.

Other than an inclination and perception, what really tells us we have LFW? How do we know it isn't illusion? I used to esteem it much higher than I do now as I once was rather against Calvinist doctrine to the contrary. It was the primary roadblock to my acceptance. Verses that call for us to deny ourselves and take up our cross repeatedly bombarded that sensibility.[ The verses themselves constantly challenged my view of LFW. Initially, I knew I needed to wade through this without considering LFW. I needed to look at scripture and leave that perception out as I considered truths. As I've spoken before, there are still remnants of Arminian thought I continue to wrestle with and LFW in particular. I don't see it as important as I once did and I've come to redefine it in light of Christ.

I guess I just don't see God being the one who decides that a girl should be raped and murdered for "the greater good."

Muz

 

[Vaquero45]

It appears I hit a nerve. I'm not a drinking man but for very rare occassions, I prefer coffee.

Let me substantiate if possible:

In OV, God sees attrocity as it is happening and does not stop it. He is fully aware of all going on. He sees the man buying the gun. He sees the gas chambers in construction. So, explain please how OV escapes evil pulling up a chair in the OV stance. Explain, please, how Calvinism is more implicated here.

My point is that this isn't a Calvin vs OV topic. The 'when' disagreement is entirely beside the point. When God knows doesn't make a difference. The prosecutor may ask 'when' we knew, but the one standing by and watching it happen with the power to stop it, is just as implicated as the man who knew two hours ago.

If you don't agree, please explain why. I don't see 'when' as a viable question for removing implication. I would expect, along with you, that neither of us see God implicated with atrocity, but isn't our answer to 'why' and 'how come' about the same? Why are you trying to implicate the Calvinist with 'when?' Ultimately, I see 'when' as extenuating rather than the crux of OV prosecution and both of our respective concerns.

Can you substantiate "insanely stupid" and "drunk?"

I believe my stance cogent and appropriately meaningful to your assertations.

Can you substantiate "insanely stupid" and "drunk?"
To state that I have simply "boo'ed" from the crowed and that I have avoided "engaging" this topic is crazy. I have made two posts in the last day that engaged the topic, and I have been the furthest thing from shy on engaging this topic in the past on TOL. I will admit to being almost totally burned out on debating it. My use of "insanely stupid" and my suggestion that you might be drunk, lol, were probably over-reactions in response to your unsubstantiated and insulting accusations.

I have no idea how you deduced that I think it is relevant to the problem of evil, "when" God knows something. Your questions make me wonder if you posted to me on accident. My argument on this has always been that for God to know the entire future He must have planned it, including every instance of evil, and every evil "choice" ever made, which would make Him the author of sin. That cannot be because He tells us He is not the author of sin.

There it is in a nutshell. Please read it over several times before you ask any questions and especially before you make any accusations. kthx

 

[Philetus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
Ahem...

How can God know that only a remnant will be saved? and afterwards, "all Israel."

Blessings,
Lee

Quote:
Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
Easy. oiwgeor-ihgjoei-hjeiorjo[ieghj[oeirhj30gj9heheojhoeiheoih

"Ahem..."

Your argument here agrees with Lee. Odd, that.

:chuckle:

 

[Philetus]

We 'all' have God allowing evil as it happens. Step up to the plate and quite booing from the crowd: engage.

Quite booing?

*****Parroting response, parroting response, parroting response*****

Who sinned? Jesus or the Father? They don't have 'true' relationship?

Think man. Think, think, think, think.

*****Parroting response, parroting response, parroting response*****
Sorry, I'm not being condescending here. We've been over and over and over this and I and others have shown this to be faulty thinking.

Is Jesus a sock-puppet or robot? Did He ever have a choice to sin? I say His nature would make this impossible. It isn't that He wasn't tempted in every way we are, as scripture tells us, it is rather that He had/has no inclination for it, being perfect and holy.

blah...blah...blah.......

BOO!

Your Jesus isn't human.

I'll bet you could describe a mutually loving relationship between yourself and a rock to try and preserve your theological position.

Sorry, Lon. I've been quietly reading ... but couldn't let this one pass.

You are capable of better than this.
Philetus

 

[RobE]

Rob: An event or knowledge cannot be a necessity and contingent at the same time. They are mutually exclusive. You cannot say the same event is necessary in God's knowledge, but contingent for us. It is one or the other objectively from God and man's perspective.

I'll try to use less words.

God's knowledge is necessary and certain.
The event is contingent.

Your question: How is the knowledge certain if the event is contingent?

My answer: God is able to stop the event through His own power making it contingent; however, He has decided to allow it since before the creation of the world so it will become certain. Before it becomes certain it remains contingent.

The contingent action is never necessary.
God's certain knowledge is never contingent.

The Wright Bros. necessary knowledge existed before the contingency of airflight became certain.
God's necessary knowledge existed prior to the contingency of creation becoming certain.

Is your knowledge ever certain before you act? Do you know you're going to work before you arrive?

Let's not be silly about this. Necessary, certain knowledge precedes contingent action and certain outcome if we have perfect, present knowledge.

 

[RobE]

The words are different, and the term "lesser evil" makes my point more obvious to someone who might not be following closely.

How's that? Your term "lesser evil" obfuscates the argument. Do you believe God brings goodness out of evil as the scriptures report?

I was getting at the idea I hold, that if God knows the future, He must have planned it, which If I'm correct means all choices were His and none were truly ours.

This is false in that it omits God planned for us to make free choices in the future. God ordained(as a king ordains a minister) that we would make choices freely. Does this mean that our bad choices are His fault? How does God foreknowing our choices eliminate them from being freely made? Do you understand how those poorly made choices might build towards the goodness which God will bring from them(i.e. Joseph)?

If God planned it, He becomes the author of sin. If it's the crystal ball I surrender, not even going to try to figure that one out.

Lucifer is the author of sin. How great Our Lord is to plan to bring about goodness from the evil which Lucifer and his children mean. All is turned to good for those who will become His.

On both sides we must presuppose that God has sufficient justification for the evil that exists. On my side I say it is to allow the existance of true relationship with His creation, which requires free will, and therefore the opportunity for evil to occur outside His will.

This is the same as what we all say other than anything being outside of God's will(either through allowance or action). This is bringing goodness from evil(which was created through poor free choices). God's higher purpose of love.

Your side says (at least in my understanding) that God has a higher purpose that we may not understand for allowing/(planning?) evil to occur. My main problem with your view is I cannot separate God knowing the future from God planning the future logically.

We do understand it......

Rob: "On my side I say it is to allow the existance of true relationship with His creation, which requires free will, and therefore the opportunity for evil to occur outside His will."​

Ultimately God allows everything to happen, true. He made the universe in such a way that evil can occur will while He remains righteous. I think we both must affirm this.

So you agree that God has decreed evil, and all within creation, to exist?

I disagree that nothing contrary to His will can happen, in any sense. We see over and over in the Bible, and today's newspaper, cases of men doing things contrary to His will. I have no problem saying this because I believe the plain reading of the Bible shows that God made men to be able to make choices and be fully accountable for them. Giving us free will separates God from the problem of evil. If you want to say that nobody can over-power God and start mucking around with the universe contrary to the way God made it to run, I'm with you on that.

Your ideas break down:

1. Ultimately God allows everything to happen, true
2. I disagree that nothing contrary to His will can happen, in any sense​

Is it God's will to allow evil to occur?

 

[Varangian]

Incorrect. God may allow evil to be perpetrated upon sinners as an element of His just nature. But that would mean that God had no hand in the commission of that evil, something only OVT can claim.

Muz

Not unless the OV is willing to deny the omnipetence of God. Otherwise, regardless of one's view of foreknowledge, evil continues to exist because God allows it to.

 

[themuzicman]

Not unless the OV is willing to deny the omnipetence of God. Otherwise, regardless of one's view of foreknowledge, evil continues to exist because God allows it to.

But there is justification for allowing it, if God's just nature demands it. If mankind suffers the evil it perpetrates because mankind is the cause of it, then God is in no way obligated to alleviated it, and His just nature demands that it continue as the natural consequence of mankind's actions.

But that is only possible if God is not a part of the process of committing it. Only OVT can make that claim. For the Calvinist to say that God "allows" evil means that God created man, ordained him to commit evil, and then "allowed" him to do what God set before him to do.

That's the difference.

Muz

 

[RobE]

I have no idea how you deduced that I think it is relevant to the problem of evil, "when" God knows something.

Open theism claims God is responsible for evil if he foreknew of it before creation and allowed it anyway; while claiming Him innocent if he foreknows of it just prior to the event and allows it anyway.

LISTEN: God is not responsible or culpable to anyone or anything other than Himself. Is God righteous, just, and Holy? If so, then God allowing evil to occur for a greater purpose must be righteous, just, and Holy. Period.

Answer this please: Why does it matter 'when' God decides to allow evil to occur?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

My argument on this has always been that for God to know the entire future He must have planned it, including every instance of evil, and every evil "choice" ever made, which would make Him the author of sin. That cannot be because He tells us He is not the author of sin.

No matter what view your hold to, one cannot escape the fact that God is the ultimate first cause of everything since He created everything. Using your logic, then, God caused evil, no matter what view of foreknowledge you hold. Hence, this must be flawed as God is not the author of sin.

The flaw is in your assumption that antecedent knowing equates to proximate causing. This is not valid. What is valid is that God can allow the actions of free agents, and even orchestrate the circumstances wherein which these free agents will so act, who themselves are the proximate causes of evil, to occur for God's own morally sufficient purposes.

The 'bottom line', if you will, is are we willing to believe that God, who is in control of everything, can still hold man responsible for his own free actions? Yes, we can.

To attempt to absolve God by creating some doctrines that dilute His sovereignty, we deny His clear teachings from Scripture. Persons seem to start from the human experience instead of from the Word of God, ignoring clear revelation while exalting their own ability to find out God and determine His nature. In other words, they reason poorly, making God in the image of man.

As anyone reading Job must conclude, any attempt to demonstrate by purely intellectual processes the truth of God's nature is absolutely hopeless. We do not elicit knowledge from God as we do from other topics of study. Furthermore, in the case of Job, no clear answers were even given to him by God to explain why he was experiencing his travails. God reveals Himself to us in the Scriptures but that is not an exhaustive revelation of His nature. God analogically conveys knowledge of Himself to man through the Scriptures—this is a knowledge which man can only accept and appropriate.

Therefore,

Do we understand how God pulls it off? No, we do not.

Do we have Scriptural warrant to deny God's sovereignty over His creation and yet He hold's man responsible? No, we do not.

 

[Lon]

And, as a fellow incompatiblist, I do appreciate the logical consistency of your position.



I'm not referring specifically to black and white, but to the ramifications of determinism for the major concepts of sin and salvation in Scripture.



And, thus, you step squarely into the problem God being the cause of evil. How do you answer a mother whose daughter has been raped and murdered? God did it for good?

I could go into this pretty deep. Whereas Paul was the Pharisee of Pharisees, I was the poster child of abuse. Where was God when I was going through it? There were times death would have been welcome to ending the torturous.

Where was God? Was God working all things for good? What good came from it? Why is it allowed? I honestly believe the rain falls on the just and the unjust. The difference, IMO is in the content of the receiver. I had a lot of deep soul searching as a child. If you doubt the severity, PM me but I don't believe it appropriate in open thread. As a child I had begged God to take me home. As an adult, I believe what I went through 1) helps me realize hell is no place I ever want to go again 2) emphathize with others as they go through their own 3) has drawn me closer to God in dependence upon Him 4) has taught me where God was the whole time, right beside me.

However, the passages you are concerned about are not concerned with EDF and LFW, so you're trying to get something out of a passage that isn't speaking to you.

Isn't it more of a stretch to say that Jesus didn't know Peter would deny Him 3 times? Isn't it more of a stretch to say 300 years later Josiah would be born as a very good guess? Why name names if prophecy is so broad as to be an educated guess? Did John really see or hear anything about the future in his vision? The natural rendering is that he was brought to heaven as he himself claims. OV seems absurd to me on these points. Perhaps our sensibilities are vastly different. I don't want to be egocentric but the majority of believers have not been OV. You have to own that troublesome reality for what it is and realize if you are just pitting sensibilities, tradition tends to trump. The Jews believe(d) in EDF. It is in their old commentaries. Catholics have believed in EDF, it is in their scripture portions clearly.

OTOH, there are huge problems with determinism in passages that clearly and directly put the onus upon individuals to make free will choices, and huge problems with passages where God judges people who have sinned against Him, and God hands out wrath.

For our discussion, I don't have a problem so much with arguing this matter with Arminians. It is the far side of this discussion with OV where our extremes are so starkly contrasted, but I am a compatiblist. I've tried to show how it is compatible, but I recognize your concern here. At this point, what does or doesn't make sense about the analogies that are given that elude to the compatible view? What is most problematic? What is on the right track for you in discussing the points (if any good presentations have been made).

These,rather than Peter's denial, Jonah in Nineveh, Judas' rebellion, are far less central to theology and Christian theology than wrath, faith, and justification. You seem to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.

I'll take that criticism, but again I'm Calvinist after discovering the compatible side of the discussion and I found the compatible view stable.

I have yet to see a definition of both that allows no contradiction.

But even you see determinism if only at certain times. Doesn't that force you to a compatible view as well? How is it that Peter will deny 3 times? How is it that Judas was the betrayer and Jesus knew? How is it that Pharoah didn't release Israel until the tenth plague as God said? How is it that the pottery cannot talk back to the potter? How is it that some vessels are made for wrath and others for righteousness? I think you must hold compatible views if only to a lesser extent. In any of these circumstances, if not all, how do you see God's determinism in relation to man's culpability? Isn't it at least similar to my position?

I thought you were an incompatiblist. Only someone with free will can "write their own script." I thought this was a movie, where God directed all the actions.

Compatible/infralapsarian. I see God as producer. We are accountable as writer/directors for our script and production. This much is pretty clear to me in scripture where we are called to account for our time and efforts.

I would seriously question major core portions of the gospel, including justification and God's goodness.

I don't. I came from a horrible background. I do not question God through this anymore than Joseph concerning God's providence for him through his many trials.

I guess I just don't see God being the one who decides that a girl should be raped and murdered for "the greater good."

Muz

This touches home for me. I am certain it isn't what we are going through, but how we handle things. I also believe God to be much closer during these times as He was for me. I must believe God works all things for good or I'd be hopelessly lost. For me, the question of 'when' wasn't and isn't as important as 'why' 'how come' 'where are you' 'I don't feel like I can handle it' etc. Again, these are all theological camp concerns. 'When' God knew I was going to go through it wasn't a primary question on my mind at the time. Where He was and what He was doing were. My biggest concern was that He show me that He could help me through it, love me through it, be close to me through it. I planted my hope in the promise that I was eternally His and that nothing could snatch me from Him. "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, Thou art with me..."

 

[Varangian]

But there is justification for allowing it, if God's just nature demands it. If mankind suffers the evil it perpetrates because mankind is the cause of it, then God is in no way obligated to alleviated it, and His just nature demands that it continue as the natural consequence of mankind's actions.

But here you play a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand and try and transform all of mankind into a single actor, where in reality mankind is billions of individual actors spanning thousands of years. This is to say that when John suffers the consquences of his own sins, no one (rationally at least) calls this injustice. That isn't the issue at hand at all. The problem of evil is that John must suffer for sins of men and women other than John and from things that are the fault of no one at all.

That John suffers for his own sins again is just and requires no explanation. Why he must suffer for things other than his own sins though is what requires explanation, and the God of the OV with no ability to justify allowing this undeserved suffering in the light using it to ultimately achieve some sort of greater good is unable to provide any.

But that is only possible if God is not a part of the process of committing it. Only OVT can make that claim. For the Calvinist to say that God "allows" evil means that God created man, ordained him to commit evil, and then "allowed" him to do what God set before him to do.

And again you're playing semantic games here. The God of the OV is every bit as much (or as little) involved the process of man comitting evil acts as God is in Calvinism. Whether God decided from eternity past to allow the myriad of temptations and evils He sees going on right now or only decided at this exact moment, He is equally responsible for allowing them. The difference again though is that a for a God with exhaustive foreknowledge we can claim that there is a justification of each and every one of these acts as He alone sees the ultimate consquences of them, whereas once that foreknowledge is stripped away that justification vanishes.

 

[themuzicman]

I could go into this pretty deep. Whereas Paul was the Pharisee of Pharisees, I was the poster child of abuse. Where was God when I was going through it? There were times death would have been welcome to ending the torturous.

Where was God? Was God working all things for good? What good came from it? Why is it allowed? I honestly believe the rain falls on the just and the unjust. The difference, IMO is in the content of the receiver. I had a lot of deep soul searching as a child. If you doubt the severity, PM me but I don't believe it appropriate in open thread. As a child I had begged God to take me home. As an adult, I believe what I went through 1) helps me realize hell is no place I ever want to go again 2) emphathize with others as they go through their own 3) has drawn me closer to God in dependence upon Him 4) has taught me where God was the whole time, right beside me.

And that's one of the things that God's healing brings: The ability to help others. However, that doesn't make God the cause of your abuse.

(And I do not doubt the depth of your claim. You have shown yourself to be trustworthy, and I trust your word on this matter.)

However, this doesn't go back to the original question: Did God decide to actualized the fact of your abuse before creation, or did your abuse occur as the result of an evil individual committing sin against you, against God's will?

In the former case, God is the author of the evil committed against you. If you want to try to justify that by saying that He ultimately made good come out of it, that's fine, but you still have God as the perpetrator,as well.

Isn't it more of a stretch to say that Jesus didn't know Peter would deny Him 3 times? Isn't it more of a stretch to say 300 years later Josiah would be born as a very good guess? Why name names if prophecy is so broad as to be an educated guess? Did John really see or hear anything about the future in his vision? The natural rendering is that he was brought to heaven as he himself claims. OV seems absurd to me on these points. Perhaps our sensibilities are vastly different. I don't want to be egocentric but the majority of believers have not been OV. You have to own that troublesome reality for what it is and realize if you are just pitting sensibilities, tradition tends to trump. The Jews believe(d) in EDF. It is in their old commentaries. Catholics have believed in EDF, it is in their scripture portions clearly.

Again, my questions come back to whether these are the core elements of the gospel. Is the question of how Jesus knew Peter would deny Him three times really core to understanding our relationship to God and how He saves us? Is the question of the naming of Josiah really as important as why sinners are under God's wrath?

OVT deals with the larger issues much more effectively, and has an answer for the smaller ones, even if they seem out of place to you.

OTOH, in a compatiblist or determinist model, the problem of evil is significant in trying to explain justification and wrath.

For our discussion, I don't have a problem so much with arguing this matter with Arminians. It is the far side of this discussion with OV where our extremes are so starkly contrasted, but I am a compatiblist. I've tried to show how it is compatible, but I recognize your concern here. At this point, what does or doesn't make sense about the analogies that are given that elude to the compatible view? What is most problematic? What is on the right track for you in discussing the points (if any good presentations have been made).

I have yet to see a good explanation for how the fact of a decision can be certain and be known before it is made. Each of your examples tries to embrace this contradiction, yet you continue to either lose EDF or lose free will.

I'll take that criticism, but again I'm Calvinist after discovering the compatible side of the discussion and I found the compatible view stable.

That's interesting, given that it is illogical.

But even you see determinism if only at certain times. Doesn't that force you to a compatible view as well? How is it that Peter will deny 3 times? How is it that Judas was the betrayer and Jesus knew? How is it that Pharoah didn't release Israel until the tenth plague as God said? How is it that the pottery cannot talk back to the potter? How is it that some vessels are made for wrath and others for righteousness? I think you must hold compatible views if only to a lesser extent. In any of these circumstances, if not all, how do you see God's determinism in relation to man's culpability? Isn't it at least similar to my position?

I'm not compatiblist on any of these issues. All of these are able to be accomplihed by God without messing with free will.

Peter stops at three because a rooster crows. Can God make a rooster crow?
Pharaoh's heart is hardened. We aren't told how. The author doesn't make a point to say.
Vessels are covenants. Namely the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant. Given that God constructed the Old Covenant, and then interacted with His people through prophets, it's not hard to see how God could set up a culture that was prepared for wrath, given that he had a couple of thousand years to do it.

But the question for the Calvinist goes like this:

How does God demand that humans pay for sin He caused us to do? Why are the unsaved eternally condemned to torment, solely because God didn't choose them?

These are questions far closer to the core of Chrstianity then expaining only three denials.

Compatible/infralapsarian. I see God as producer. We are accountable as writer/directors for our script and production. This much is pretty clear to me in scripture where we are called to account for our time and efforts.

And then you lose EDF. The producer doesn't know what the writer/director is going to do before he gets the films.

I don't. I came from a horrible background. I do not question God through this anymore than Joseph concerning God's providence for him through his many trials.

Excellent. Welcome to Open View Theism.

This touches home for me. I am certain it isn't what we are going through, but how we handle things. I also believe God to be much closer during these times as He was for me. I must believe God works all things for good or I'd be hopelessly lost. For me, the question of 'when' wasn't and isn't as important as 'why' 'how come' 'where are you' 'I don't feel like I can handle it' etc. Again, these are all theological camp concerns. 'When' God knew I was going to go through it wasn't a primary question on my mind at the time. Where He was and what He was doing were. My biggest concern was that He show me that He could help me through it, love me through it, be close to me through it. I planted my hope in the promise that I was eternally His and that nothing could snatch me from Him. "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, Thou art with me..."

Amen. I doubt that my experience even comes close to yours, but I have felt some of the same kinds of things.

But theologically, the Calvinist places the evil in his life at God's feet, because He causes them, but then says that it's OK, because God wants something to good to come from it.

The OVT says that God is good in ALL that He does. He does not cause or create evil, but fallen men perpetrate evil. The problem is that we are ALL fallen, and we ALL perpetrate and suffer the effects of evil. That's not to say that you individually deserved what happened to you. But no man can claim to be innocent, either.

God, then, in His grace, is with those who call upon His name, working to take what man intends for evil and using it to create good for those who are called according to His purpose.


What's the difference? The major difference is this: Who is the evil one? Who is the cause of evil?

Muz

 

[Lon]

Can you substantiate "insanely stupid" and "drunk?"
To state that I have simply "boo'ed" from the crowed and that I have avoided "engaging" this topic is crazy. I have made two posts in the last day that engaged the topic, and I have been the furthest thing from shy on engaging this topic in the past on TOL. I will admit to being almost totally burned out on debating it. My use of "insanely stupid" and my suggestion that you might be drunk, lol, were probably over-reactions in response to your unsubstantiated and insulting accusations.

I think I understand the insult. My sincere apologies. I was not trying to do anything but to get you to engage. I haven't seen your substantial posts before and am not sure we've even crossed debate paths before.
My desire wasn't to insult you but to draw you into the discussion points, but again I can see how you would take that and I apologize that print doesn't convey as well as speaking intentions. I had no intention of insulting you. Ellicit substantiation, yes. Please accept the apology as I endeaver to cut tenor from my writing style. Philetus calls me on this once in awhile and it is never my intention to personally insult. I just want to debate the truths for His glory and our sakes. I debate rigorously, but I forget sometimes to break the ice more pleasantly as protocol would suggest.

I have no idea how you deduced that I think it is relevant to the problem of evil, "when" God knows something. Your questions make me wonder if you posted to me on accident. My argument on this has always been that for God to know the entire future He must have planned it, including every instance of evil, and every evil "choice" ever made, which would make Him the author of sin. That cannot be because He tells us He is not the author of sin.

There it is in a nutshell. Please read it over several times before you ask any questions and especially before you make any accusations. kthx

He must have planned...

This is the assumption I've been trying to address. As an educated guess, I believe God knows innately as all things are sustained by Him (Colossians 1).

I don't know how God has EDF, but I believe scripture supports this view. I do understand the criticism of the stance. For some reason, it seems to OVers to be more relational if God does His planning on contingencies on the fly, but even OV says "God is very smart" to elude to His perfect ability to make countermoves to accomplish His purposes.

From what I have seen, OV tends to side-step the presence of evil discussion by saying the difference is 'when' God knows evil is happening. There are many pages into this very discussion and I don't believe the problem of evil to be strictly pointed at Foreknowledge.

I do believe God planned how He would interact and respond to sin. Jesus was the plan. I don't believe, however, that He planned for Adam to sin. Knew he would sin, yes. So rather I see God planning for how He would respond and what He would need to do to get us out of sin's bondage. EDF doesn't have God as the author of sin. It is knowledge of what would occur and His own determinations about getting us out of the mess created. Our disagreements tend to be more about the order that things take place than about the actual time they took place. I see God as having the ability to know how His creation will progress, what His actions will effect, and the outcomes of both our and His own actions or He wouldn't be able to tell us a boy named Josiah would live 300 years later to destroy worship of foreign gods, or tell His disciples that one was a betrayer.

 

[themuzicman]

But here you play a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand and try and transform all of mankind into a single actor, where in reality mankind is billions of individual actors spanning thousands of years. This is to say that when John suffers the consquences of his own sins, no one (rationally at least) calls this injustice. That isn't the issue at hand at all. The problem of evil is that John must suffer for sins of men and women other than John and from things that are the fault of no one at all.

God deals with Israel corporately, sending them all into exile, those who believe and those who do not. This is clearly a Scriptural concept.

That John suffers for his own sins again is just and requires no explanation. Why he must suffer for things other than his own sins though is what requires explanation, and the God of the OV with no ability to justify allowing this undeserved suffering in the light using it to ultimately achieve some sort of greater good is unable to provide any.

Are you saying that the guilty have some claim because you don't think the consequences fit the crime?

And again you're playing semantic games here. The God of the OV is every bit as much (or as little) involved the process of man comitting evil acts as God is in Calvinism. Whether God decided from eternity past to allow the myriad of temptations and evils He sees going on right now or only decided at this exact moment, He is equally responsible for allowing them. The difference again though is that a for a God with exhaustive foreknowledge we can claim that there is a justification of each and every one of these acts as He alone sees the ultimate consquences of them, whereas once that foreknowledge is stripped away that justification vanishes.

The major difference is that for EDF God in some way chooses the decisions we make, making God the source and cause of evil. It's not just a matter of "allowing." For EDF, God has made a prior determination that evil will occur and be committed by men before any are created.

In OVT, God's intent can be (and is) for a perfect, unblemished creation, without evil, knowing that it is possible for man to rebel as a necessity of His purpose, but certainly not what God ever wanted for us.

That's the difference.

Muz

 

[Lon]

Quite booing?

Dang it! (a little ala mode with my humble pie please)

BOO!

Your Jesus isn't human.

But He is also God. I'm not sure why this is always the objection. God doesn't sin and is fully relational to us. The Godhead doesn't need sin for contrast for love to be meaningful. Wasn't that the argument? What aren't you agreeing with?

I'll bet you could describe a mutually loving relationship between yourself and a rock to try and preserve your theological position.

Sorry, Lon. I've been quietly reading ... but couldn't let this one pass.

You are capable of better than this.
Philetus

There's the ala mode. Perhaps I could have said it better as the point obviously escaped. I have no problem with your and Val's correction and it was most likely called for as a poorly framed counter to his post. I will endeaver to step up to the plate myself.

 

[Varangian]

God deals with Israel corporately, sending them all into exile, those who believe and those who do not. This is clearly a Scriptural concept.

But to justify such an action on the part of God as being good, we must again move to the argument that sending Israel into exile was for the purpose of bringing about a greater good or else God actions in treating the believer and unbeliever alike would be unjust.

Are you saying that the guilty have some claim because you don't think the consequences fit the crime?

I'm saying that when one suffers the consuqences of a crime they did not commit that it is unjust. All men are guilty of sin in general as a result of which all will ultimately die. This is perfectly just. However, men also suffer additionally for the sins of other men and there is, on the surface, no justice in this. This is, at it's core, the problem of evil, and without a God who is capable of taking such suffering and ultimately forging from it a greater good, it remains unjust.

Again, to move to an analogy. John is not a nice man. He is rude to his neighbors. He is lazy and rarely works and even when he does he is often dishonest seeking to cheat both his employer and customers. One day John is arrest, convicted, and executed for a murder he did not commit. Is this unjust?

I would say yes. Despite the consquences he most certainly deserved for the very real evil he did commit in life, he didn't deserve to be punished for an evil he did not actually commit. It seems though from what you've previously stated about mankind corporately deserving the consquences of individual sins that you would actually say, that since John is certainly a bad man in general and since the act was certainly committed by some other member of the human race of which John is a part, that such an execution is therefore perfectly just. Do you see how this follows from the logic you're using?

The major difference is that for EDF God in some way chooses the decisions we make, making God the source and cause of evil. It's not just a matter of "allowing." For EDF, God has made a prior determination that evil will occur and be committed by men before any are created.

Except that it is very much just a matter of allowing, and you fail here to make any actual argument to contrary here rather just making assertions without support.

In OVT, God's intent can be (and is) for a perfect, unblemished creation, without evil, knowing that it is possible for man to rebel as a necessity of His purpose, but certainly not what God ever wanted for us.

What was God's purpose in creating man?

 

[themuzicman]

But to justify such an action on the part of God as being good, we must again move to the argument that sending Israel into exile was for the purpose of bringing about a greater good or else God actions in treating the believer and unbeliever alike would be unjust.

Why is God executing judgment bad? Isn't that part of God's job as sovereign over creation? Are you saying that God is evil for judging those who have sinned against Him?

Do you actually think about this stuff?

'm saying that when one suffers the consuqences of a crime they did not commit that it is unjust.

Why? Was it unjust for those who obeyed the law and believed in God to go into exile with the rest of Israel? Just because you want the individualistic view of the western mind to prevail doesn't mean that God has to follow you.

All men are guilty of sin in general as a result of which all will ultimately die. This is perfectly just. However, men also suffer additionally for the sins of other men and there is, on the surface, no justice in this. This is, at it's core, the problem of evil, and without a God who is capable of taking such suffering and ultimately forging from it a greater good, it remains unjust.

Evil is unjust. However, for OVT, God isn't the cause of it, and God isn't obligated or unjust in allowing it to occur. He has no part in its initiation or execution. He only propitiated it and judges it in the end.

Again, to move to an analogy. John is not a nice man. He is rude to his neighbors. He is lazy and rarely works and even when he does he is often dishonest seeking to cheat both his employer and customers. One day John is arrest, convicted, and executed for a murder he did not commit. Is this unjust?

It's an evil system committing evil against an evil man. How is God involved? Certainly you wouldn't blame GOD for this happening, would you?

I would say yes. Despite the consquences he most certainly deserved for the very real evil he did commit in life, he didn't deserve to be punished for an evil he did not actually commit. It seems though from what you've previously stated about mankind corporately deserving the consquences of individual sins that you would actually say, that since John is certainly a bad man in general and since the act was certainly committed by some other member of the human race of which John is a part, that such an execution is therefore perfectly just. Do you see how this follows from the logic you're using?

No. You fail to associate God with the evil being perpetrated.

And, again, God is not obligated to prevent evil from happening to the guilty, whether they deserve it or not, as long as God isn't involved in the perpetration of that evil.

Except that it is very much just a matter of allowing, and you fail here to make any actual argument to contrary here rather just making assertions without support.

But you equivocate on "allow." In Calvinism, God "allows" what He causes to happen. In OVT, evil men commit evil against other evil men. God isn't involved.

What was God's purpose in creating man?

To have a people for Himself, a people with whom He could engage in a reciprocal covenantal loving relationship, whom He would bless and who would praise and glorify Him.

Muz

 

[RobE]

Aaah, the root of the openist's dis-jointed logic......

Gentlemen: Might we agree on the greater purpose of God in relationship to the evils that God allows and would know to come, to exist, through the creative act?

Romans 8:20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.​

When we speak of the 'greater good' we aren't necessarily speaking of the greater good of the individual, but of the 'greater good' for creation. Is it a greater good to create reciprocal relationship from free agents when one of the side effects of the act would be free agents refusing love and embracing evil instead?

In other words, does God allow evil to occur to individuals for the greater overall good of allowing truly free, loving relationships?

Now was it God's will to do so in that He ordained man with free will; and decreed to create man despite the evil which free choices sometimes produce? Does He not allow creation to continue for the same reason? Is it not true that God allows the continuance for the sake of those who will be His --- despite the negative outcomes for those who refuse His counsel?

Muz:

Post 6659
But you equivocate on "allow." In Calvinism, God "allows" what He causes to happen. In OVT, evil men commit evil against other evil men. God isn't involved.
And, again, God is not obligated to prevent evil from happening to the guilty, whether they deserve it or not, as long as God isn't involved in the perpetration of that evil.
Post 6656-The major difference is that for EDF God in some way chooses the decisions we make, making God the source and cause of evil. It's not just a matter of "allowing." For EDF, God has made a prior determination that evil will occur and be committed by men before any are created.
Post 6654-In the former case, God is the author of the evil committed against you. If you want to try to justify that by saying that He ultimately made good come out of it, that's fine, but you still have God as the perpetrator,as well.
Post 6649-For the Calvinist to say that God "allows" evil means that God created man, ordained him to commit evil, and then "allowed" him to do what God set before him to do.
Post 6642-I guess I just don't see God being the one who decides that a girl should be raped and murdered for "the greater good."
Post 6602 - Because the facts of my decisions are already established. They are set in stone, and unchangeable. In fact, those facts are actualized before creation, before I could have existed. Regardless of how, it is the original source of the foreknowledge that ultimately winds up being the deterministic factor.​

All of these are false. Muz, you make God the source of evil by allowing evil for NO greater good! God's greater purpose before the foundations of the world was to create and love His children. This act of creation, by your own account, would result in some rejecting Him and ALL committing evil acts. God's knowledge beforehand didn't make Him the source of evil, unless you wish to conclude a loving father is the source of his sons evil acts.

Vaquero45

Post 6643-My argument on this has always been that for God to know the entire future He must have planned it, including every instance of evil, and every evil "choice" ever made, which would make Him the author of sin
Post 6632-My main problem with your view is I cannot separate God knowing the future from God planning the future logically.
If God planned it, He becomes the author of sin.
Post 6605-Your insistance on God's total foreknowledge logically requires that He planned all evil​

Vaquero. Planning creation which would ultimately include evil acts is far different than orchestrating or participating in evil acts themselves. A short circuit in thinking here. God allows evil as a necessary part of His plan to create free will agents. It's the free agents that commit the evil, not God.

Godrulz

Post 6639-Jeffrey Dahmer's specific acts of torture were heinous evil and gratuitous. Does torture while someone is alive have more merit in God's detailed plan than killing them quickly? Does God really give people desire to cut off people's genitals for a higher good?!
Post 6615-An act is inherently good or evil. One cannot say it is good from God's perspective but evil from man's perspective.
Post 6610-If allowing the rape of one child is arbitrarily for a higher good, then the same should apply to all kids?!​

Godrulz: EGADS!!!

No. You fail to associate God with the evil being perpetrated.

This is the saddest of all.....

Muz you inappropriately associate God with the evil being perpetrated. God is not doing the evil. God is allowing the evil for a greater good.

Where is the proof that foreknowing an evil act is the same as engaging in evil Itself?

Proof, proof, or proof of any of these logical mis-matches would be appreciated. You guys have certainly latched onto a sandy foundation for your theology. How about a step by step approach to proving your ideas that 'knowing' and 'doing' are the same.