The Two Will Theory Again...

[seer]

I have been reading the other thread on this subject, and I must say that I'am rather confused. I mean God may say He wants A (like all men to be saved) but all the while God is actively doing Non-A. Doesn't this bring into question His honesty? And how is one to know which "will" is speaking at any given time?

[joelkaki]

I have been reading the other thread on this subject, and I must say that I'am rather confused. I mean God may say He wants A (like all men to be saved) but all the while God is actively doing Non-A. Doesn't this bring into question His honesty? And how is one to know which "will" is speaking at any given time?

There is the revealed will, and then the secret, sovereign will. What we know--in the Scriptures--and what he has sovereignly decided to happen. Or in other terms, preceptive and decretive. Why would God decree for something that would be against his preceptive will? I do not think we should really ask this question that much, but here is one possible answer (at least to why he desires all to be saved, yet chooses to regenerate only some).
God's attributes all work together for one purpose, his glory. And I do not believe that one attribute is exalted over another. And so he demonstrates all of his attributes. He could have saved every single person, but that would only display his power and love. But by determing to only save some, he also demonstrates his justice. And if he didn't demonstrate his justice to us, we wouldn't really know what his love means. We wouldn't comprehend the full measure of what it means for God to love us, for if no one experienced his wrath and justice, we would not be able to more fully comprehend his love. So, by choosing some and passing over others, he demonstrates his sovereignty, his power, his love, and his justice. That message is found throughout the 9th chapter of Romans. His attributes are all in accord with one another, all working for his glory, and he demonstrates all of his attributes to us.

Joel

[seer]

There is the revealed will, and then the secret, sovereign will. What we know--in the Scriptures--and what he has sovereignly decided to happen. Or in other terms, preceptive and decretive. Why would God decree for something that would be against his preceptive will? I do not think we should really ask this question that much, but here is one possible answer (at least to why he desires all to be saved, yet chooses to regenerate only some).

So then can we trust anything that God tells us? He tells us that He wants all men to be saved, but in reality He doesn't. He says that He loves the elect and will save them - but His secret, sovereign will may in fact be planning to damn them. How could you know?

[efta777]

So then can we trust anything that God tells us? He tells us that He wants all men to be saved, but in reality He doesn't. He says that He loves the elect and will save them - but His secret, sovereign will may in fact be planning to damn them. How could you know?

I suppose that could be one way of interpreting this, but it would be innacurate. The way I see it there ARE two wills in God, but calling them both 'wills' seems misleading, as they are two separate things. On one hand, God WANTS (Wills) all men to be saved. In the same way, it was God's will (Want) that Adam and Eve would not sin, etc... This will is not something that God takes total control over, but rather states what he desires and lets us in our freewill decide. HOWEVER, God CAN make happen whatever he wants to happen. This is the key. God can speak through prophets and make his PLAN known, and it will surely happen. Come to think of it, maybe that's the key difference. There is God's PLAN (Things that must happen - God controls it) and God's will (Things God desires to have happen but are up to us). I don't see any problem with allowing God to be sovereign, i.e. have the ability to completely control everything, but at the same time THROUGH his sovereignity offering us freewill.

[seer]

Well efta, if you believe in free will then the question would not be for you. Because in that model, God would not always get what He wants i.e. all men to be saved...

[efta777]

Well then, I completely agree that if man does not have free-will then they run into this contradiction because God does say that it is his will that all should be saved. The only way I can see to get around this is by using the theory that I stated in my last post.

[seer]

Today @ 12:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77888#post77888)
efta777:

Well then, I completely agree that if man does not have free-will then they run into this contradiction because God does say that it is his will that all should be saved. The only way I can see to get around this is by using the theory that I stated in my last post.

Yes,that is why Calvinists have a problem with this text.

[joelkaki]

So then can we trust anything that God tells us? He tells us that He wants all men to be saved, but in reality He doesn't. He says that He loves the elect and will save them - but His secret, sovereign will may in fact be planning to damn them. How could you know?

Yes we can trust God. God does not delight in the death of the wicked, and thus in one sense wants (wishes) all men to be saved. A want is different than will. Want is preceptive. Will is decretive. So yes, he desires the salvation of all, but decrees otherwise. A word, though--He chooses his elect; the others he passes over. He doesn't actively stop them from seeking him. The non-elect naturally run from him (as do the elect, till he regenerates them), and thus though he desires their salvation, he, for reasons not entirely known to us, lets them remain in their spiritually dead state.

He will not decree otherwise (saving the elect) because he has told us he WILL save the elect. That is decretive, not just preceptive.

Joel

[seer]

...He will not decree otherwise (saving the elect) because he has told us he WILL save the elect. That is decretive, not just preceptive.

But you just said that His sovereign (decretive) will was secret. And if it is secret how do you KNOW it? You say He will save the elect but Paul says that God wills all men to be saved. You can't have it both ways Joel - "thelo" will in 1 Tim.2:4 does mean to will,to want. See how Christ uses it in Jn.17:24. Certainly that is more than a wish.

And you make God doubleminded. Part of Him wants to save all men,and the other part of Him doesn't.

[Alien]

Today @ 08:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77522#post77522)
joelkaki:
God's attributes all work together for one purpose, his glory. And I do not believe that one attribute is exalted over another. And so he demonstrates all of his attributes. He could have saved every single person, but that would only display his power and love. But by determing to only save some, he also demonstrates his justice. And if he didn't demonstrate his justice to us, we wouldn't really know what his love means. We wouldn't comprehend the full measure of what it means for God to love us, for if no one experienced his wrath and justice, we would not be able to more fully comprehend his love. So, by choosing some and passing over others, he demonstrates his sovereignty, his power, his love, and his justice. That message is found throughout the 9th chapter of Romans. His attributes are all in accord with one another, all working for his glory, and he demonstrates all of his attributes to us.

Pardon me for being blunt, but if this is a true description of God, then I don't understand how anyone would want to do anything but run and hide from such a monster. Everything for His own glory? That makes me think of Saddam Hussein, with his idealised pictures of himself all over the place.

And whole sections of people have to be sacrificed so that He can demonstrate this that or the other attribute? Like a karate black belt kicking someone in the head to demonstrate his skill, maybe?

(Shudder) Though a really loving God would be a nice idea, I find the non-existence of the God you describe to be a much more comfortable thought.

You're going to explain how I've misunderstood, though. Aren't you? Please?

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 02:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78031#post78031)
Alien:



Pardon me for being blunt, but if this is a true description of God, then I don't understand how anyone would want to do anything but run and hide from such a monster. Everything for His own glory? That makes me think of Saddam Hussein, with his idealised pictures of himself all over the place.

And whole sections of people have to be sacrificed so that He can demonstrate this that or the other attribute? Like a karate black belt kicking someone in the head to demonstrate his skill, maybe?

(Shudder) Though a really loving God would be a nice idea, I find the non-existence of the God you describe to be a much more comfortable thought.

You're going to explain how I've misunderstood, though. Aren't you? Please?

You are pardoned for you statement. The Bible does portray God as a very powerful being who does work all things to his Glory. If God exist and He is all powerful then why would he not want to show his Glory? You also reveal what Paul says in Romans 1 that man bascially hates God and runs from Him. Jesus also said that He is light and whoever hates light runs from Him.
Another thing you must remember is that the Bible is not a full revelation of God it is only what he wants us to see we truly are looking through a dirty glass. Anyway probably not the loving pixie Sky fairy you where looking for I will leave that to the Open Theist to tell you about.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[geebob]

Alien

You're going to explain how I've misunderstood, though. Aren't you? Please?

Whether or not you understand this view just explained, I'd say that you share an intuition with many Christians who reject the picture explained by Joel and Blake as what they claim as a demonstration of glory arguably takes blind faith to understand as glorious. And by that, I mean the notion that God ultimately determines one to rebel and then hold's that person responsible. It is easy to understand that they would insist it is the glory of one who triumphs over the wicked and depraved, but that is eclipsed by the implication that the necessity of the wickedness and depravity originated in a plan by God before his creature had any being.

[sacre]

To understand the "wills" of God, we must first understand who He is. We, as Christians, believe that God is infinitely righteous (or Just). This means that, in all things, He prescribes to each it's due. As Supreme Being, God is due all importance, authority, honor, and glory. Thus, for God to be just, He must ascribe the highest glory to Himself. How can He do this if He saves all? One might argue that this is only possible by knowledge of sin, effectively setting Him completely apart for glory (the angels call to each other, "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God"--"Holy" meaning "set apart" or "other").

If God's Preceptual will is that all should glorify Him, it makes sense that some should glorify Him through His judgement of their evil deeds and some others should glorify Him through their acceptance and witness of His salvation (and I do mean "His salvation"). Therefore, His Decretal will would decide who does what, but also that all should glorify Him, no matter what they do (hence the analogy of the clay vessels and their usage; naturally, even a vessel set apart for common use would still show the skill of the potter).

The analogies between God and creation (i.e. "monsters", "Saddam Hussein", "black belt", etc) fall short, precisely because they attempt to bring God "up" to the level of human design. God, however, is truly HOLY (or "wholly holy"), and so all attempts fall short. We notice, along the same vein, that the entire OT was meant to point forward to the Christ, with shadows and types that were incredibly complex... even with divine inspiration, the allegories fall sadly short in the face of the Logos. The best we can come up with, in this case, is to echo the early Christian hymn:

"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to Him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen."

Godspeed,
R. McIntyre

[Solly]

Today @ 07:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78178#post78178)
geebob:
I mean the notion that God ultimately determines one to rebel and then hold's that person responsible. It is easy to understand that they would insist it is the glory of one who triumphs over the wicked and depraved, but that is eclipsed by the implication that the necessity of the wickedness and depravity originated in a plan by God before his creature had any being.

And yet that damnation is solely our own fault. It is not a Reformed maxim that God determined anyone to rebel, if you mean we were programmed to do so, since that is contrary to the revelation that man was created good. True Reformed theology holds in balance the mystery that all things are known before hand of God, yet human beings have moral responsibility for their actions. This is a mystery, and a mystery which OVT at least seeks to see fully into by driving between what it sees as the two horns of this dichotomy. For all the talk about Calvinistic philosophical presuppositions, it is the Calvinists who rest upon the fact that these things are revealed, and therefore to be received, no matter what our minds might be able to make of. Divine sovereignty and human responsibility. HyperCalvinism overplays the former, Arminianism (in some forms) and OVT overplays the latter. IMHO.

And is there anything wrong in God establishing a set of circumstances where sin was a probable outcome - and salvation a defintie outcome because of that, as opposed to the OVT view that God was taken unawares?

When Moses asked to see God's glory, what did he see?

Exo 34:5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.
Exo 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
Exo 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear [the guilty]; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth [generation].

How would he have had this revelation without the fall? How would God ever have been known beyond the knowledge of Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead, unless God had, in some way incomprehensible to us, taken the fall into account (Adam and Eve were in the garden, and not partakers of God's forgiving mercy until after the fall)? And this revelation was dependant upon our sin. Because of the fall God's judgment would have been clearly revealed, there is no disputing that fact; but in his wisdom he had a greater revelation, one which is summed up in Jesus, the NT translation of the passage from Exodus.

[Solly]

Today @ 02:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78031#post78031)
Alien:

And whole sections of people have to be sacrificed so that He can demonstrate this that or the other attribute? Like a karate black belt kicking someone in the head to demonstrate his skill, maybe?

(Shudder) Though a really loving God would be a nice idea, I find the non-existence of the God you describe to be a much more comfortable thought.

Your sin is your responsibility, you are in rebellion against God. No one will go to hell whose desires and decisions have not already tended in that direction (and don't think of images from medieval pictures either).

A "really loving God" would of course turn a blind eye to all the faults of human beings like you or I. But then, who would be able to protest against the injustices of this world, or the harm one human being does to another? Who would be able to judge in their own circumstances, since God is not allowed to judge, because he must be so care bear lovey dovey; would you run your home that way.

--Ah, but he could still intervene.

Would you want him to intervene in your life?

Sin is against an eternal and infinite God; it therefore has eternal and infinite consquences. Just as the murder of an adult, a child, a policeman, and a president are not on a level, but exact different levels of punishment, so sin against God (and the death of his Son because of it - we were all at the cross, would all have acted the same - brings the greatest consequences.

So of course, the non-existence of such a God is a comfortable thought; the Bible has said that all along:

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

[seer]

sacre,I don't think your post addressed the problem. The fact is your two theory makes God doubleminded - part of Him wants to save all men,and part of Him does not. It also makes His statements untrustworthy. When God says that He wants A, how can we trust that claim?

[Theolog]

04-23-2003 @ 02:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76942#post76942)
seer:

I have been reading the other thread on this subject, and I must say that I'am rather confused. I mean God may say He wants A (like all men to be saved) but all the while God is actively doing Non-A. Doesn't this bring into question His honesty? And how is one to know which "will" is speaking at any given time?

For me the only answer that makes sense is simply “all” does not mean every single cotton picking slime ball that has ever lived. If you can accept this understanding then many of our theological dilemmas are solved.

[joelkaki]

sacre,I don't think your post addressed the problem. The fact is your two theory makes God doubleminded - part of Him wants to save all men,and part of Him does not. It also makes His statements untrustworthy. When God says that He wants A, how can we trust that claim?

Let me ask you this:

Does not a father want what will please his child? And yet, will not the father punish the child for the greater final good?

You see, God wants, desires, wishes for all men to be saved. (Although in the context of the verse that says that it means all men without distinction, not all men without exception). But he wills otherwise, though that could cause him grief, in order to bring about our final good and his glory.

Joel

[efta777]

For me the only answer that makes sense is simply “all” does not mean every single cotton picking slime ball that has ever lived. If you can accept this understanding then many of our theological dilemmas are solved.

What reason is there to believe something like this? You mean God doesn't even DESIRE all men to be saved? If you're wrong (Which I believe you are) then the only way I can see to reconcile this desire of God for ALL men to be saved with his sovereignity is by showing that God does indeed ALLOW us to have freewill THROUGH his sovereignity. God will always retain the capability and right to do whatever he wills to whomever he wills it upon; he can choose to do great things with one person while causing another to have a hardened heart - all for his glory.

[Alien]

Today @ 12:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78178#post78178)
geebob:
Whether or not you understand this view just explained, I'd say that you share an intuition with many Christians who reject the picture explained by Joel and Blake as what they claim as a demonstration of glory arguably takes blind faith to understand as glorious. And by that, I mean the notion that God ultimately determines one to rebel and then hold's that person responsible. It is easy to understand that they would insist it is the glory of one who triumphs over the wicked and depraved, but that is eclipsed by the implication that the necessity of the wickedness and depravity originated in a plan by God before his creature had any being.

Geebob: It's nice to know that at least some Christians share my misgivings. I think you are saying that God bears the ultimate responsibility for everything that occurs, given His foreknowledge and decision to "go ahead" with (this version of) creation. I share this opinion.

Everyone else: Thanks for the thoughtful replies.

Solly in particular: Your response raises many questions, which could be the subject of several threads. As this is not the line that Seer originally intended the thread to take, I won't pursue them here. We could talk about it on another thread if you like?

[seer]

For me the only answer that makes sense is simply “all” does not mean every single cotton picking slime ball that has ever lived. If you can accept this understanding then many of our theological dilemmas are solved.

So Theolog,you were never a cotton picking slime ball?

[seer]

You see, God wants, desires, wishes for all men to be saved. (Although in the context of the verse that says that it means all men without distinction, not all men without exception). But he wills otherwise, though that could cause him grief, in order to bring about our final good and his glory.

1. Who says it means all men without distinction? That is Calvinist double talk. So until you can prove in context, that Paul means that it is an unfounded assumption.

2. But again Joel, your theory still makes God doubleminded. Part of Him wants all men to be saved,and part of Him doesn't. And it brings into question God's truthfulness. How can you trust anything He says?

[joelkaki]

1. Who says it means all men without distinction? That is Calvinist double talk. So until you can prove in context, that Paul means that it is an unfounded assumption.

From my debate with doogieduff:

Let’s look at the context of these verses:

1 Timothy 2:1-2--Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.

We are to pray for all men. Does “all men” mean every single man without exception? I do not believe so. If we are to think that “all men” means every single man who has ever lived, is living, and will live, then that means we must pray for men who are long since dead. Is that what the Apostle Paul is exhorting us to do? To pray for every single man, even ones that are already dead? Of course not. Now you might say, “ ‘All men’ means all men living at that time here.” Be careful, for if you say that, you are limiting all men, and if you can limit all men to that, that it can also be limited in a host of other ways. Not to mention, if “all men” means even just every single person alive at that time, then we have a pretty hard responsibility. We have to pray for billions of people individually? I don’t think that is what Paul intended. Here is what I believe all men to mean: All men refers to all men without distinction--all types of men. This idea would seem to carry through in verse 2, for it lists a group (type) of men--kings. We are to pray for all men without distinction. We are to pray for friends, relatives, the president, the Cabinet, the pastor, the members of our church, etc. Saying that “all men” in verse 1 means every single man leads to some rather ridiculous conclusions.
If “all men” in verse 1 refers to all men without distinction, then it can hardly be expected to mean otherwise in verse 4. God desires all men without distinction to come to him. There is no Jewish (or otherwise) exlusivism. God desires all to come to know him.

2. But again Joel, your theory still makes God doubleminded. Part of Him wants all men to be saved,and part of Him doesn't. And it brings into question God's truthfulness. How can you trust anything He says?

It is not that part of him doesn't. The word in for wish is different for the word for will (decree). I'm afraid I do not see how it questions God's truthfulness.

The point that Theolog raised was my former position. Actually, I kind of am half way between this and what he said. I am not really positive that he is not correct. I am sure, however, that 1 Tim 2 does not teach that. The only passage that would indicate otherwise to me is Ezekiel 18.

Joel

[seer]

We are to pray for all men. Does “all men” mean every single man without exception? I do not believe so. If we are to think that “all men” means every single man who has ever lived, is living, and will live, then that means we must pray for men who are long since dead.

Does the all men here include the non-elect?

If “all men” in verse 1 refers to all men without distinction, then it can hardly be expected to mean otherwise in verse 4.

Ok,then there is no distinction between the elect and non-elect - correct?


BTW - I do pray for all men. All men that have ever lived. It takes about a minute...

But so folks like you can not be mistaken, Paul makes sure that we know how he uses "all men." In 4:10 it is clear that all men do include the non-elect.

[seer]

It is not that part of him doesn't. The word in for wish is different for the word for will (decree). I'm afraid I do not see how it questions God's truthfulness.

We are not always told in scripture what is God's wish or will,so half the stuff He tells us could be false. And again you are making God doubleminded - part of Him wants to save all men,and part of Him doesn't,for if there wasn't a part of Him that wanted to save all men then why did he say it in the first place? Was He lying?

[joelkaki]

seer, were I wrong about this two will theory, it would take me to theolog's position, not yours, for I find too many irreconcilable inconsistencies in the teachings of Arminianism.

Joel

[seer]

...seer, were I wrong about this two will theory, it would take me to theolog's position, not yours, for I find too many irreconcilable inconsistencies in the teachings of Arminianism.


Give me one example...

And let me ask you Joel, if God said to you - Joel,I desire to save you - would you believe Him?

[joelkaki]

I do not believe the Arminian doctrines of sin, regeneration, efficiency of Christ's death, to be consistent with the Bible.


Joel

[seer]

I do not believe the Arminian doctrines of sin, regeneration, efficiency of Christ's death, to be consistent with the Bible.

Let's start with one at a time. How is the Arminian doctrines of sin different from yours?

BTW Joel, did you miss my question?

[seer]

Here Joel is James Arminius' teaching on the will of man:

"In his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace."

http://www.godrules.net/library/arminius/arminius.htm

[Gavin]

Dear Alien,

Pardon me for being blunt, but if this is a true description of God, then I don't understand how anyone would want to do anything but run and hide from such a monster. Everything for His own glory? That makes me think of Saddam Hussein, with his idealised pictures of himself all over the place.

And whole sections of people have to be sacrificed so that He can demonstrate this that or the other attribute? Like a karate black belt kicking someone in the head to demonstrate his skill, maybe?

(Shudder) Though a really loving God would be a nice idea, I find the non-existence of the God you describe to be a much more comfortable thought.

You're going to explain how I've misunderstood, though. Aren't you? Please?

For "God to be uppermost in God's affections" (as Piper would put it) is not selfish or monstrous (as it would be and is for humans to do this) because of who God is. God is a being of infinite worth, majesty, power, and glory. No one truly understanding who God is wonders why God does all things for his own names' sake.

In other words, he is that awesome.

And (again thanks to Piper) God's glory and our /comfort joy are not incompatible with each other. It is precisely in our giving glory to God's abundance and greatness that our lives find meaning and joy, and it is precisely in God's bringing attention to his unspeakable glory that God acts most compassionately to us. You'll notice that praising God and taking joy in God are used interchangably in the Psalms. He get the glory, we get the joy.

[seer]

The problem is Gavin, we humans want a safe and tame god. What we have in reality is The Lion of Judah....

[Gavin]

Very true seer.

[joelkaki]

I do not believe the Arminian doctrines of sin, regeneration, efficiency of Christ's death, to be consistent with the Bible.

Let's start with one at a time. How is the Arminian doctrines of sin different from yours?

I guess on sin, there is not completel consensus in the Arminian camp. You own to disagree with me, however, on original sin.


BTW Joel, did you miss my question?

Yes, I did. I didn't see it. I suspect it is because you edited it after I read it and copied and pasted it.
I will come back to it later. Right now I have to go watch the Maverick's game.

Joel

[seer]

I guess on sin, there is not completel consensus in the Arminian camp. You own to disagree with me, however, on original sin.

Yes,I have a bit of a different take. But my belief has the same end. Apart from God's grace we slip into complete carnality...

[geebob]

Solly,

It is not a Reformed maxim that God determined anyone to rebel, if you mean we were programmed to do so, since that is contrary to the revelation that man was created good.

The westminster confession comes to mind. " God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass," Followed by the statement that he did not do so because o what he foreknew consideration of foreknowledge. That is enough determination as far as I am concerned.

There is that notion that Adam wasn't programed as you say, but that God removed his grace so that He would fall. It's like someone removes a wedge from under a bolder and then blames the bolder for rolling down the hill. :shrug:

For all the talk about Calvinistic philosophical presuppositions, it is the Calvinists who rest upon the fact that these things are revealed, and therefore to be received, no matter what our minds might be able to make of.

It seems to me that many Calvinists have satisfied themselves with the notion that since folks wanted to commit the sins that they were ordained to commit, their responsibility has been established.

How would he have had this revelation without the fall?

I don't consider much of that revelation to be very essential outside of the context of a fallen world. The glory of God that we can rejoice in is related to us and it is glorious that God has responded as he has.

but in his wisdom he had a greater revelation, one which is summed up in Jesus, the NT translation of the passage from Exodus.

And the revelation of Jesus is not dependent upon sin. Had we not fallen, we wouldn't have known him as redeemer, but we would have known him as the bride-groom of the people of God.



Alien

I think you are saying that God bears the ultimate responsibility for everything that occurs, given His foreknowledge and decision to "go ahead" with (this version of) creation. I share this opinion.

close. I think God bears responsibility if he determined everything and it is very arguable and reasonable that he bears the responsibility for foreknowing the fall and that he gave the "go ahead". I don't believe that either of those are the case. God frequently does not foreknow what we will do and that is because that there is often no fact of the matter about what we will do to be foreknown (thus you couldn't say he wasn't omniscient on that account since what he doesn't foreknow does not exist for him to be ignorant of- as what is true in it's place is the presence of several possibilities).

[joelkaki]

And let me ask you Joel, if God said to you - Joel,I desire to save you - would you believe Him?


Your argument is kind of unanswerable, because I don't believe God says that anywhere in the Bible. Saying, "I desire to save you" is different than "I desire for you to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." I believe him either way, though. But the second, which is what is actually said, invalidates your question. Seer, God doesn't say, "I desire to save you" and then not save you. He says, "I take no delight in your death; I desire for you to be saved." In other words, God doesn't get delight out of his creation's death, and so in that sense he desires for them to be saved, he desires for them to turn to him, yet he truly saves only His elect. That makes sense per 1 Timothy 4:10.

Joel

[Alien]

Yesterday @ 07:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79019#post79019)
Gavin:
For "God to be uppermost in God's affections" (as Piper would put it) is not selfish or monstrous (as it would be and is for humans to do this) because of who God is. God is a being of infinite worth, majesty, power, and glory. No one truly understanding who God is wonders why God does all things for his own names' sake.

In other words, he is that awesome.

And (again thanks to Piper) God's glory and our /comfort joy are not incompatible with each other. It is precisely in our giving glory to God's abundance and greatness that our lives find meaning and joy, and it is precisely in God's bringing attention to his unspeakable glory that God acts most compassionately to us. You'll notice that praising God and taking joy in God are used interchangably in the Psalms. He get the glory, we get the joy.

Hmmmmm. I guess I just don't get it. I would not find a totally self-absorbed narcissistic human to be "of infinite worth" or "awesome". And I don't see why substituting a being of infinite power for the human changes the equation any, other than to make it something infinitely to be avoided. :)

Incidentally, is the joy you mention in any way related to our benefit, or just a subservient reflection of God's wellbeing?

Is this maybe like a Corporation telling the staff how well its doing so they can take a pride in being a part of it? That's OK up to a point, but I'd still want to be well treated on the job and have a good pension plan! (There, I've set you up to talk about heaven. :) ).

Who's Piper, btw?

Seer:The problem is Gavin, we humans want a safe and tame god. What we have in reality is The Lion of Judah....

It's not so much what we want, but what we have been told. I thought that omnibenevolent went with the other two omnis. I never realised that omnibenevolent was defined as "loving oneself totally to the exclusion of all others".

And who wouldn't want an omnipotent being to be "safe"? Geez, this guy can wipe out the lot of us with a flick of one (metaphorical) finger! Its only the benevolent bit that makes Him anything other than the most frightening thing since "Scary Movie"! :)

Thanks for the replies, guys. I don't mean to be rude, but this is really how your picture of God makes me feel. :(

[Alien]

Geebob:
close. I think God bears responsibility if he determined everything and it is very arguable and reasonable that he bears the responsibility for foreknowing the fall and that he gave the "go ahead". I don't believe that either of those are the case.

OK.

God frequently does not foreknow what we will do and that is because that there is often no fact of the matter about what we will do to be foreknown (thus you couldn't say he wasn't omniscient on that account since what he doesn't foreknow does not exist for him to be ignorant of- as what is true in it's place is the presence of several possibilities).

Now you've lost me.

Are you saying that the future is not knowable by God because it doesn't exist yet? Even so, God, being all powerful would have a very good if not perfect ability to predict the future from His knowledge of the present. It doesn't seem to be rocket science to predict that beings with our natures (heck, He's got the blueprints right there) would have a tendency to disobey Him.

And if He only had possibilities to go on, one of those possibilities was, surely, the fall? It seems irresponsible to "go ahead" given even the possibility of the fall, knowing the incredible misery on Earth that would result from it, not to mention the infinite misery of those that would end up in Hell. All of which would have been avoided if He'd just done it differently!

That said, a God that can't tell the future is pretty consistent with the OT, IMO.

[joelkaki]

Alien, with regards to your earlier comment about the way I described God being like SH, let me say this. SH tortured people, killed them, etc, for no reason other than his own twisted sense of pleasure. God however does not do that. He punishes people rightly for their sin. You would agree, would you not, that the government must punish wrongdoing? I mean, if someone kills someone else, would they not need to be punished? That is what God does. Every single human has sinned against Him, and done what is wrong, and thus he has the right to punish them for it.


Joel

[seer]

Seer, God doesn't say, "I desire to save you" and then not save you. He says, "I take no delight in your death; I desire for you to be saved." In other words, God doesn't get delight out of his creation's death, and so in that sense he desires for them to be saved, he desires for them to turn to him, yet he truly saves only His elect.

Wordplay Joel. God desires for you to be saved, but not really,because if He did - you would be saved. Conflicting desires in God?

[joelkaki]

Wordplay Joel. God desires for you to be saved, but not really,because if He did - you would be saved. Conflicting desires in God?

Not wordplay at all. And even if it was, it's biblical wordplay, so it doesn't bother me. But I don't believe it was anyway.

There is a difference between saying, "I desire to save you" and "I desire for you to be saved and to know the truth."

Here are the connotations of "I desire to save you":

God would then be desiring to regenerate and give faith to every single man. In that case, then God would desire to regenerate men he has not chosen to regenerate.

Here are the connotations of "I desire for you to be saved and to know the truth":

God would then be saying that it grieves him for his creation to reject him and suffer punishment, thus he truly wants them to come to know him.

The point being of course, that although God does truly want every man to come to be saved, to accept Him, to know the truth, and have that joy, he knows that none will naturally do so, for naturally, none seek after God. (Rom 3:10-11). So He takes the intiative, and sovereignly chooses to save some of them, for His own glory. The others, though He desires them to place their faith in Him, He, for his own purposes and glory, passes over, allowing them to follow their own sinful pattern of wickedness. And He judges them for that sin.

Again I state, it is not right for us to question how God does things. We can't say, "That's not fair." Paul answers that in Romans 9.

Joel

[Alien]

Yesterday @ 08:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79771#post79771)
joelkaki:
Alien, with regards to your earlier comment about the way I described God being like SH, let me say this. SH tortured people, killed them, etc, for no reason other than his own twisted sense of pleasure.

Well, I'd guess SH's primary purpose was to keep himself in power. But sadism does not seem unlikely, at least for those that actually did the torturing, and SH certainly concurred with what happened.

Point taken anyway.

God however does not do that. He punishes people rightly for their sin. You would agree, would you not, that the government must punish wrongdoing? I mean, if someone kills someone else, would they not need to be punished? That is what God does. Every single human has sinned against Him, and done what is wrong, and thus he has the right to punish them for it.

I've argued this one before, lets run it past you and see what you think.

Actually, I don't agree that government must punish wrongdoers. Its just the best tool we seem to be able to think of right now. Reforming criminals would be far superior IMO.

What might be a motivation for punishing wrongdoers? I would suggest the following possibilities, for humans at least.

1) Reformation. The criminal is persuaded to mend his ways, either from fear of more punishment or by "treatment" while incarcerated.

2) Protection of potential victims. The criminal can't commit crimes while incarcerated. (OK, not against the general population).

3) "Closure" for the victims. They feel better knowing that the criminal has been punished.

4) Simple revenge. The punisher (the non-criminal population) is angry at the crime and reacts by hurting the criminal as he has hurt the victim.

Now lets see how these apply to God.

1) Reformation does not apply. God makes no attempt to reform sinners (after death), He just sticks them in Hell, from which, as I understand it, there is no release. One might think that He would continue His efforts to reform people after death, but no.

2) Protection of potential victims does not apply. The criminal is dead and potential victims are still on Earth.

3) Closure for the victims seems unlikely. I guess a victim might get some satisfaction from thinking that the criminal will go to Hell some day, but he might repent and get off, so I don't know how much weight that would carry. I would think that people in heaven would be too happy to need this.

4) Revenge seems an unworthy motivation for God. I know He's supposed to get angry, but getting satisfaction from hurting a human seems like my enjoying torturing an ant that has bitten me - kind of small and petty. (Even that analogy doesn't really apply. An ant can cause me some slight temporary pain, but there's no way I can hurt God).

So is there anything left? Not on the list, but its been suggested to me that God has to punish sin as some kind of cosmic balance. I picture a huge pair of scales with sin on one side and punishment on the other and some rule that says they have to hang level.

If that's your argument, maybe you can explain it to me so it makes sense.

[geebob]

Even so, God, being all powerful would have a very good if not perfect ability to predict the future from His knowledge of the present.

I think God could predict much of what could happen, but I wouldn't call a prediction knowledge as it would not be confirmed until the event in question comes to pass. I believe that that was the issue with Jerimaiah 3:7.

In an indeterministic world though, some events cannot be predicted with much certainty at all. The best that can be done is to decipher the probability that something will come to pass.

It doesn't seem to be rocket science to predict that beings with our natures (heck, He's got the blueprints right there) would have a tendency to disobey Him.

That's a very general prediction though which does not require that what is known to be in terms of certainties. Also, I reject that this was true of the first humans.

And if He only had possibilities to go on, one of those possibilities was, surely, the fall?

He didn't have only possibilities to know. There were also some certainties. But yes, he knew the fall as a possibility, and I believe he knew it as a remote possibility.

It seems irresponsible to "go ahead" given even the possibility of the fall, knowing the incredible misery on Earth that would result from it, not to mention the infinite misery of those that would end up in Hell. All of which would have been avoided if He'd just done it differently!

Well that possibility was a necessity of the important way in which man had libertarian freedom. I believe that the benefits of having libertarian freedom outweighed the unfortunate nature of the possibility of rebellion. Furthermore, I do not think that the possibility of evil is necessarily evil. As a matter of fact, the possibility of anything is not the thing itself.

I explain the benefits of libertarian freedom in this thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=22389#post22389

[Alien]

Yesterday @ 05:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80371#post80371)
geebob:
I think God could predict much of what could happen, but I wouldn't call a prediction knowledge as it would not be confirmed until the event in question comes to pass.

It isn't. But that's not what I'm arguing.

In an indeterministic world though, some events cannot be predicted with much certainty at all. The best that can be done is to decipher the probability that something will come to pass.

That's right. Probabilities. The weather is chaotic, which makes it extremely difficult to predict. Nevertheless, meteorologists get it right in a reasonable percentage of cases, particularly when broad patterns are considered.

Do you think that God can predict the weather more accurately than we do?

That's a very general prediction though which does not require that what is known to be in terms of certainties.

Right. But why do you refrain from driving down the highway with the accelerator flat on the floor, weaving in and out of the traffic? (Hopefully that's true. :) ). After all, its not certain that you will cause an accident. Do you think that the "not certain" defense would hold up in court?

Also, I reject that this was true of the first humans.

If there was zero probability of Adam and Eve disobeying God, then why did it happen?

He didn't have only possibilities to know. There were also some certainties. But yes, he knew the fall as a possibility, and I believe he knew it as a remote possibility.

I can only say (as there is no way to determine what God might have known) that I disagree with your assessment. Based on observations of modern humans and reading of history, I'd classify it as a near certainty.

Well that possibility was a necessity of the important way in which man had libertarian freedom. I believe that the benefits of having libertarian freedom outweighed the unfortunate nature of the possibility of rebellion.

Ah, the "free will" defense. It depends on the balance of benefit (from free will) and harm (from evil) IMO. There are also degrees of free will. But that's a long discussion. :)

Furthermore, I do not think that the possibility of evil is necessarily evil. As a matter of fact, the possibility of anything is not the thing itself.

Obviously not. But you'd still be punished for reckless driving even if you didn't actually hit anyone. Possibilities matter when we decide how to act.

I explain the benefits of libertarian freedom in this thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=22389#post22389

Read with interest.

[joelkaki]

Alien, I'll get back to you on what is below, but for me to respond properly, I think this foundational problem must be addressed. What is your basis for deciding all of that down there?

Joel

I've argued this one before, lets run it past you and see what you think.

Actually, I don't agree that government must punish wrongdoers. Its just the best tool we seem to be able to think of right now. Reforming criminals would be far superior IMO.

What might be a motivation for punishing wrongdoers? I would suggest the following possibilities, for humans at least.

1) Reformation. The criminal is persuaded to mend his ways, either from fear of more punishment or by "treatment" while incarcerated.

2) Protection of potential victims. The criminal can't commit crimes while incarcerated. (OK, not against the general population).

3) "Closure" for the victims. They feel better knowing that the criminal has been punished.

4) Simple revenge. The punisher (the non-criminal population) is angry at the crime and reacts by hurting the criminal as he has hurt the victim.

Now lets see how these apply to God.

1) Reformation does not apply. God makes no attempt to reform sinners (after death), He just sticks them in Hell, from which, as I understand it, there is no release. One might think that He would continue His efforts to reform people after death, but no.

2) Protection of potential victims does not apply. The criminal is dead and potential victims are still on Earth.

3) Closure for the victims seems unlikely. I guess a victim might get some satisfaction from thinking that the criminal will go to Hell some day, but he might repent and get off, so I don't know how much weight that would carry. I would think that people in heaven would be too happy to need this.

4) Revenge seems an unworthy motivation for God. I know He's supposed to get angry, but getting satisfaction from hurting a human seems like my enjoying torturing an ant that has bitten me - kind of small and petty. (Even that analogy doesn't really apply. An ant can cause me some slight temporary pain, but there's no way I can hurt God).

So is there anything left? Not on the list, but its been suggested to me that God has to punish sin as some kind of cosmic balance. I picture a huge pair of scales with sin on one side and punishment on the other and some rule that says they have to hang level.

If that's your argument, maybe you can explain it to me so it makes sense.

[geebob]

[/quote]Right. But why do you refrain from driving down the highway....[/quote]

I didn't quite understand your point here.

If there was zero probability of Adam and Eve disobeying God, then why did it happen?

I didn't say there was a zero probability. I believe there was a low probability. And you wouldn't predict that something would happen that had a low probability of happening. You'd predict the event with the higher probability.

Based on observations of modern humans and reading of history, I'd classify it as a near certainty.

keep in mind, you're dealing with christian theism and in that picture, there was a fall that changed the nature of man.

But you'd still be punished for reckless driving even if you didn't actually hit anyone.

not necessarily if the good outweighed the danger. If I was a police officer or if I was transporting an injured person to the hospital.

[Alien]

Today @ 03:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81195#post81195)
joelkaki:
Alien, I'll get back to you on what is below, but for me to respond properly, I think this foundational problem must be addressed. What is your basis for deciding all of that down there?


Partly my own feelings about what the purpose of punishment could/should be and partly observation (for example, there are efforts made to rehabilitate prisoners, a convicted criminal often gets a lighter sentence if he seems genuinely penitant, etc).

Oh, I left one out:

Deterrence. Potential criminals may be persuaded not to commit crimes if they see that others are punished for them.

As applied to God: A possibility, perhaps the most feasible motivation. Eternal torment seems a bit extreme, but whatever.

[seer]

A thought for you Alien on this subject, by CS Lewis:

From the Problem of Pain:

"God says to man 'You must be strong with my strength, and blessed with my blessedness - for I have no other to give you.' That is the conclusion of the whole matter. God gives what He has, not what He has not: He gives the happiness that there is, not the happiness that is not. If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows - the only food that any possible universe can grow - then we must starve eternally..."

[Alien]

Today @ 06:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81369#post81369)
geebob:
Right. But why do you refrain from driving down the highway....

I didn't quite understand your point here.

At the time when you consider engaging in reckless driving any harm to others is only a possiblity. Yet you decide against it based on that possibility alone. It doesn't have to be actual to carry weight in your decision making process. (Or in the punishment you will receive if caught for that matter.)

I didn't say there was a zero probability. I believe there was a low probability. And you wouldn't predict that something would happen that had a low probability of happening. You'd predict the event with the higher probability.

You'd consider the low probability event to be less likely (duh!), yes.

Its a balance though, isn't it? If a warning light illuminates during takeoff in an airliner, the pilot will abort the takeoff roll if he can and immediately return to the airport if he can't. Ninety nine times out of a hundred it turns out to be a faulty light, but he doesn't take that chance. Why? Because the result of there actually being a problem might be to cause the death of hundreds of passengers. The results of the fall have been many many times more serious than those of a single airplane disaster.

We can also ask how long God intended A & E to remain in the Garden. I believe they were immortal before the fall, right? In an infinite time even the lowest probability event will happen.

keep in mind, you're dealing with christian theism and in that picture, there was a fall that changed the nature of man.

You're saying that Adam and Eve were a lot less likely to disobey God than a post-fall person? Well, Eve did so over eating a particular fruit (a fairly trivial matter), with very little urging from the serpent, if the Biblical account is to be believed. But granting this, we now have to say that God didn't predict the consequences of the fall accurately.

not necessarily if the good outweighed the danger. If I was a police officer or if I was transporting an injured person to the hospital.

But that wasn't my example. I was talking about you, in other words an ordinary motorist. In any case, ambulances are only allowed to exceed speed limits by 10mph and have to observe traffic laws in general. There's no point in causing more injuries trying to help the person that is already hurt. Police officers in "hot pursuit" don't have carte blanche to drive recklessly. They are specially trained for one thing, and are told to break off the chase if the situation gets too risky to third parties.

Are you talking about some kind of risk/benefit tradeoff wrt the fall though? Remember that according to you God didn't intend the fall to happen, so it has to be the risk of the fall against the benefit of having A & E live in the Garden.

[Alien]

Today @ 07:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81458#post81458)
seer:
A thought for you Alien on this subject, by CS Lewis:

From the Problem of Pain:

"God says to man 'You must be strong with my strength, and blessed with my blessedness - for I have no other to give you.' That is the conclusion of the whole matter. God gives what He has, not what He has not: He gives the happiness that there is, not the happiness that is not. If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows - the only food that any possible universe can grow - then we must starve eternally..."

This is the "best of all possible worlds" argument, is it not? In other words, this is the best universe that God could create, and by extension the best universe that could be under any circumstances.

I consider this dubious at best, though one can always argue that we have imperfect knowledge.

[joelkaki]

Partly my own feelings about what the purpose of punishment could/should be and partly observation (for example, there are efforts made to rehabilitate prisoners, a convicted criminal often gets a lighter sentence if he seems genuinely penitant, etc).

OK, but what is the basis for that? How do you know that any of those should be the way it is? How do you know that your own feelings are reliable?


Oh, I left one out:

Deterrence. Potential criminals may be persuaded not to commit crimes if they see that others are punished for them.

As applied to God: A possibility, perhaps the most feasible motivation. Eternal torment seems a bit extreme, but whatever.


God uses means to draw his elect to Himself, and that could be a way to do it, though that is not really the purpose of it.

Joel

[Alien]

Yesterday @ 07:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81482#post81482)
joelkaki:
OK, but what is the basis for that? How do you know that any of those should be the way it is? How do you know that your own feelings are reliable?


My feelings are what I feel. Are you suggesting I may be mistaken about what I feel? "Should be"? That's what my own feelings suggest "should be" and they may or may not accord with what others feel. There is also a logical examination of what purposes punishment may serve and a determination of whether punishment serves these ends. Whether these ends are what we "should" wish for is subject to the same process.

If you're suggesting that there is some absolute objective code of morality "out there" that we (and God for that matter) can refer to, then you'll have to demonstrate its existence.

Maybe we can examine my reasons for punishment anyway. If you disagree with my reasons, then you can say why and/or suggest some alternative reasons that justify God's punishing people.

Look, here's why I started this. This is what you said:

You would agree, would you not, that the government must punish wrongdoing? I mean, if someone kills someone else, would they not need to be punished? That is what God does. Every single human has sinned against Him, and done what is wrong, and thus he has the right to punish them for it.

You are taking as a "given" that people "need to be punished". I thought it would be productive to challenge this premise. What I posted were some opening thoughts for us to discuss. Lets see where we go with it. :)

[joelkaki]

Yes, Alien, I understood where you were coming from, and why you brought those up; I was just trying to get more to a core issue, from which I can better respond to your initial points.

My feelings are what I feel. Are you suggesting I may be mistaken about what I feel? "Should be"? That's what my own feelings suggest "should be" and they may or may not accord with what others feel. There is also a logical examination of what purposes punishment may serve and a determination of whether punishment serves these ends. Whether these ends are what we "should" wish for is subject to the same process.

If you're suggesting that there is some absolute objective code of morality "out there" that we (and God for that matter) can refer to, then you'll have to demonstrate its existence.


Basically, I suppose what I am asking in a nutshell is, Do you believe that there are absolutes?
Now, as to your feelings on the matter--how do you know that those are the best reasons for punishment? I mean, if I have a different idea completely, who's to say which way is the best?

I will get back with you on all of your reasons for punishment, but I just wanted to consider these things that I have brought up briefly.

Joel

[seer]

That really wasn't the point Alien...

"God says to man 'You must be strong with my strength, and blessed with my blessedness - for I have no other to give you.' That is the conclusion of the whole matter. God gives what He has, not what He has not: He gives the happiness that there is, not the happiness that is not. If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows then we must starve eternally..."

[Alien]

Yesterday @ 08:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81909#post81909)
joelkaki:
Basically, I suppose what I am asking in a nutshell is, Do you believe that there are absolutes?

Hmmmm. There are things that are near enough to certainty to be called absolutes. I believe morality to be subjective, however. Try not to draw too many conclusions from that at this stage.

Now, as to your feelings on the matter--how do you know that those are the best reasons for punishment? I mean, if I have a different idea completely, who's to say which way is the best?

We would have to decide on our basic motivations, like, are we concerned about the criminal or just the victim? Then we can examine each reason to see how closely it addresses our agreed motivation. If we can't agree on the basics, then we may have to agree to differ.

I will get back with you on all of your reasons for punishment, but I just wanted to consider these things that I have brought up briefly.

I'll await your post. Drop me a PM if it takes too long, I don't want to miss it. :)

[Alien]

Yesterday @ 04:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82417#post82417)
seer:

That really wasn't the point Alien...

"God says to man 'You must be strong with my strength, and blessed with my blessedness - for I have no other to give you.' That is the conclusion of the whole matter. God gives what He has, not what He has not: He gives the happiness that there is, not the happiness that is not. If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows then we must starve eternally..."


Then I've missed your point and simply repeating what you quoted before isn't going to help me.

Try explaining how Lewis' statement is relevant to anything I've said.

[seer]

Try explaining how Lewis' statement is relevant to anything I've said.

You were speaking of hell, and it's injustice.

[Alien]

Today @ 04:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83985#post83985)
seer:
You were speaking of hell, and it's injustice.

That's right, but I still don't see the relevance. Is he saying that God sets everything up the way He wants and we should just accept it, no matter how unfair it seems? Or that God is somehow constrained to be unfair and that's the best we can hope for?

[geebob]

We can also ask how long God intended A & E to remain in the Garden. I believe they were immortal before the fall, right? In an infinite time even the lowest probability event will happen.

Adam and Eve were imature. But as they lived resisting temptation, that probability would have eventually wittled down to zero.

But granting this, we now have to say that God didn't predict the consequences of the fall accurately.

God did not predict the fall. I don't know if he predicted what the consequences would be, but I believe that he knew the range of what was possible in it's entirety.

But that wasn't my example

The example had it's limits, and those limits are such that the example did not provide adequate criticism of my view. God was not like some reckless teen in giving us free will. He gave us free will because the benefits are tremendous and outweighed the potential for evil. It was worth it.

and even with my adjustments, it has it's limits.

[Alien]

Geebob:

OK, I think that's as far as we can profitably go with this without starting to repeat ourselves.

Thanks for the discussion! :smile:

[Will_C_Drotar]

04-25-2003 @ 12:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77888#post77888)
efta777:

Well then, I completely agree that if man does not have free-will then they run into this contradiction because God does say that it is his will that all should be saved. The only way I can see to get around this is by using the theory that I stated in my last post.

I would love for you to oblige us.

[seer]

....I would love for you to oblige us.

Well Will, I think the idea is that since God does in fact want all men to be saved, the fact that they aren't lies in the will of the man, not God.

[seer]

Is he saying that God sets everything up the way He wants and we should just accept it, no matter how unfair it seems? Or that God is somehow constrained to be unfair and that's the best we can hope for?

Lewis' thought goes deeper than that. God only gives what He has. Life, and that life is only in Him. So either one partakes of that life or he eternally starves.

[djdavo]

SEER: to get back to your original question- i don't see the contradiction here. maybe i'm missing the point. how i see it is.

1. God wants all of us to come to him.
2. God gave us the ability to choose or deny him freely.
3. God set up the rules: if we don't come to him we can't be with him.

he DESIRES for us to come to Him, but leaves the desicion up to us. i honestly don't see the problem here.

[seer]

Yes djdavo, that is true and logical in the Arminian model. Some Calvinist will say that God does desire all men to be saved, but it is a desire, not His will on the matter. So though He desires all to be saved He only wills that the elect be saved.

[joelkaki]

Sorry this has taken so long. It seems like I just kept getting involved in more and more threads and never got around to this one.

“ God however does not do that. He punishes people rightly for their sin. You would agree, would you not, that the government must punish wrongdoing? I mean, if someone kills someone else, would they not need to be punished? That is what God does. Every single human has sinned against Him, and done what is wrong, and thus he has the right to punish them for it. ”

I've argued this one before, lets run it past you and see what you think.

Actually, I don't agree that government must punish wrongdoers. Its just the best tool we seem to be able to think of right now. Reforming criminals would be far superior IMO.

What might be a motivation for punishing wrongdoers? I would suggest the following possibilities, for humans at least.

1) Reformation. The criminal is persuaded to mend his ways, either from fear of more punishment or by "treatment" while incarcerated.

2) Protection of potential victims. The criminal can't commit crimes while incarcerated. (OK, not against the general population).

3) "Closure" for the victims. They feel better knowing that the criminal has been punished.

4) Simple revenge. The punisher (the non-criminal population) is angry at the crime and reacts by hurting the criminal as he has hurt the victim.

Now lets see how these apply to God.

1) Reformation does not apply. God makes no attempt to reform sinners (after death), He just sticks them in Hell, from which, as I understand it, there is no release. One might think that He would continue His efforts to reform people after death, but no.

You see, God gives sinners the gospel while they are alive in most situations, so they are without excuse. Not to mention, God's attributes are seen in the world so they are without excuse, so there is no need to reform after death, because if they wouldn't believe in life, they wouldn't believe in death either. Not to mention, there can really be no reformation after death, so that point is moot.


2) Protection of potential victims does not apply. The criminal is dead and potential victims are still on Earth.

True, that does not apply.


3) Closure for the victims seems unlikely. I guess a victim might get some satisfaction from thinking that the criminal will go to Hell some day, but he might repent and get off, so I don't know how much weight that would carry. I would think that people in heaven would be too happy to need this.

No, that is not it at all.


4) Revenge seems an unworthy motivation for God. I know He's supposed to get angry, but getting satisfaction from hurting a human seems like my enjoying torturing an ant that has bitten me - kind of small and petty. (Even that analogy doesn't really apply. An ant can cause me some slight temporary pain, but there's no way I can hurt God).

No, it is not just simple revenge like that.


So is there anything left? Not on the list, but its been suggested to me that God has to punish sin as some kind of cosmic balance. I picture a huge pair of scales with sin on one side and punishment on the other and some rule that says they have to hang level.

If that's your argument, maybe you can explain it to me so it makes sense.

OK, I will try to go through this as best as I can:

God is the Creator of the Universe. He created Adam and Eve, the first man, and first woman. HE GAVE THEM A SPECIFIC COMMAND, namely, to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Assumed in this of course, is that God is the rightful authority in this situation). Adam and Eve, however, chose to disobey. They willfully did what they had been commanded not to do.
I don't know whether you have kids or not, but if you do, then when you give them specific commands, as in, do this or that, or don't do this or that, and then they do it, or don't do it, as the case may be, you punish them. There are specific requirements there, which you, as the rightful authority, have set up. And should you not punish, your commands would be seen to be of no value. And so God gave Adam and Eve that command, and they disobeyed, and He had to punish them for that.
And with us it is the same way. He is the rightful authority who has given commands, and we have all disobeyed them, and so he must punish for it.
So basically, it isn't really because of reformation, or protection, or closure, or revenge. God hates sin (which surely you would agree is a good thing--we should not be for the things that are bad)--and cannot look on it. It is inherent in His nature. Also, God brings about a relationship with His people through the punishment for sin. All have sinned, and broken the relationship with God, which He, through his Son, restores.

If you feel I have not adequately answered your post, please say so.

And also, the real core issue is what I alluded to earlier--an absolute standard. You will ultimately not agree with me because you recognize no such standard.
As to that, however, you said that it must be proved that such an objective standard exists. I'm afraid you are mistaken there. Such is fact. I don't really have to prove it. There is an objective standard contained in the Bible. That is not the issue, that cannot be disputed. Whether or not you choose to follow it is the issue. There is an objective, concrete standard given to us in the Scriptures, and that fact is not changed whether or not you hold to it or not.
And if there is no absolute standard, then why should I listen to your view or you listen to my view? In other words, who is to really say whether there should be punishment or not? How do you decide what is good, what is bad, what you should do, what you should not do?
And if you just act according to your personal feelings, how do you know that they should be trusted?

Joel

[Alien]

Hi Joel,

Yesterday @ 04:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102538#post102538)
joelkaki:
Sorry this has taken so long. It seems like I just kept getting involved in more and more threads and never got around to this one.

No problem.

OK, my response. We seem to agree that all the reasons I gave for punishment (really they are reasons that we humans typically use) do not apply to God. I don't know if you saw my post where I added deterrence as a reason that I had omitted. I don't know if you feel that might reasonably apply to God's punishment? Fear of Hell has traditionally been used to "scare people straight", so to speak.

Also, I am prepared to accept as a "given" for this discussion that we all have sinned. My question is more "does punishment make sense when applied by God to sinners that are already dead?"

You see, God gives sinners the gospel while they are alive in most situations, so they are without excuse. Not to mention, God's attributes are seen in the world so they are without excuse, so there is no need to reform after death, because if they wouldn't believe in life, they wouldn't believe in death either. Not to mention, there can really be no reformation after death, so that point is moot.

I don't see why that necessarily follows. Surely a sinner, even granting the "without excuse" assertion (which I don't, but that is another subject), would be more inclined to repent when faced with the unarguable fact of survival after death and his really being in hell? And why can there be no reformation after death? We can still think and make decisions, surely?


God is the Creator of the Universe. He created Adam and Eve, the first man, and first woman. HE GAVE THEM A SPECIFIC COMMAND, namely, to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Assumed in this of course, is that God is the rightful authority in this situation). Adam and Eve, however, chose to disobey. They willfully did what they had been commanded not to do.
I don't know whether you have kids or not, but if you do, then when you give them specific commands, as in, do this or that, or don't do this or that, and then they do it, or don't do it, as the case may be, you punish them. There are specific requirements there, which you, as the rightful authority, have set up. And should you not punish, your commands would be seen to be of no value. And so God gave Adam and Eve that command, and they disobeyed, and He had to punish them for that.

But Adam and Eve continued to live on Earth, so that is a quite different situation. Also, I wouldn't punish children for any other reason but to reform them. Not even deterrence applies, I wouldn't hurt one child just to improve the behavior of another. In short the punishment of a child should always be for the good of the child, not some demonstration of my superior power.

I do agree that an unenforced command weakens any further commands one might give. But in the case of children, the ultimate objective is still the good of the child.


And with us it is the same way. He is the rightful authority who has given commands, and we have all disobeyed them, and so he must punish for it.

But He must have a defensible purpose for that punishment, not just "bad dog, no, no!" I've given a list of reasons that might be given to justify punishment, and you agree that none apply to God. What is left seems to be a kind of kneejerk "bad, smack" reaction.

So basically, it isn't really because of reformation, or protection, or closure, or revenge. God hates sin (which surely you would agree is a good thing--we should not be for the things that are bad)--and cannot look on it. It is inherent in His nature.

But if God hates sin (yes, that's reasonable) then surely He would want to reduce the amount of sin. Leaving unrepentant sinners to their own devices until they die then giving them a huge punishment doesn't do anything to achieve this. Timely and appropriate punishment during a sinner's life on Earth I could understand, as it might lead to a change in behavior, but after death it's too late.

Also, God brings about a relationship with His people through the punishment for sin. All have sinned, and broken the relationship with God, which He, through his Son, restores.

Are you saying that God wants us to sin so He can save us from it, thus having a relationship with us?



If you feel I have not adequately answered your post, please say so.

You've given the standard Christian answer, which is quite plain and understandable, thank you. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't seem appropriate to a superbeing to behave in this way.


And also, the real core issue is what I alluded to earlier--an absolute standard. You will ultimately not agree with me because you recognize no such standard.

I don't? I do believe that morality is subjective, in the sense that it is entirely generated within the minds of conscious beings, but many standards are agreed upon by just about everyone, including God, so I don't see why I can't use those to form a judgement of God's actions.

As to that, however, you said that it must be proved that such an objective standard exists. I'm afraid you are mistaken there. Such is fact. I don't really have to prove it. There is an objective standard contained in the Bible. That is not the issue, that cannot be disputed. Whether or not you choose to follow it is the issue. There is an objective, concrete standard given to us in the Scriptures, and that fact is not changed whether or not you hold to it or not.

But you just did offer proof. You stated that the objective standard is defined in the Bible.


And if there is no absolute standard, then why should I listen to your view or you listen to my view? In other words, who is to really say whether there should be punishment or not? How do you decide what is good, what is bad, what you should do, what you should not do?
And if you just act according to your personal feelings, how do you know that they should be trusted?

I agree that my feelings, considered in isolation, are just that, my feelings. However, when I compare them to the feelings of another person and find that his feelings are the same as mine, then we have the basis for a joint course of action. If I find that the vast majority of the human race agree with me, then I am probably justified in judging those that break the rules as "wrong". Do you agree with me that hurting another person without there being some overriding benefit is wrong? Does God agree? If so then I have a rule that I can apply to everyone, even God. Actually this rule is the basis of my argument about punishment.

As an aside, my problem with this "God knows best" approach is that we are left with no basis for making any moral judgements at all. If God says X is good and I say it is bad, then I am wrong, no matter how strongly I feel about it. So what's the point of my having any opinions about morality? They really have no value, as they can always be shown to be wrong.

[micah4]

I have been reading the other thread on this subject, and I must say that I'am rather confused. I mean God may say He wants A (like all men to be saved) but all the while God is actively doing Non-A. Doesn't this bring into question His honesty? And how is one to know which "will" is speaking at any given time?

Yes, it does; the "two wills" theory is faulty, as can be seen in the failure of even noted theologians such as Piper to successfully defend it.

See http://nocalvin.atspace.com/wills_and_decrees.htm

[Samuel]

So then can we trust anything that God tells us? He tells us that He wants all men to be saved, but in reality He doesn't. He says that He loves the elect and will save them - but His secret, sovereign will may in fact be planning to damn them. How could you know?

Sir,
Firstly, we can trust anything God tells us because he is God. If he did not keep his word then he would not be God.
Secondly, God does want all men to be saved but men are unwilling..so in reality he does.
Thirdly, He does love his elect and will save them..his sovereign will is that they are kept by the Shepherd(Jesus Christ) so that they are secure forever. Why would God waste him time in saving a person just to see him get lost again? That would be HOG WASH!
Fourthly, Everything God says in his word we can trust and believe because he is God and He says that He keeps his promises.

Those were some good questions though.

Sambo :smile: