The Problem of Evil

[RBerman]

My how you DO love to beat the strawman...This caricature of OVT is every bit the strawman that the Robot metaphor you eschew below is of Calvinism.
By far the majority of OVT adherents will tell you that:

This view may be called dynamic omniscience (it corresponds to the dynamic theory of time rather than the stasis theory). According to this view God knows the past and present with exhaustive definite knowledge and knows the future as partly definite (closed) and partly indefinite (open). God's knowledge of the future contains knowledge of that which is determinate or settled as well as knowledge of possibilities (that which is indeterminate). The determined future includes the things that God has unilaterally decided to do and physically determined events (such as an asteroid hitting our moon). Hence, the future is partly open or indefinite and partly closed or definite and God knows it as such. God is not caught off-guard-he has foresight and anticipates what we will do.

source = http://www.opentheism.info (emphasis in text mine)

I'm familiar with the OT distinctions mentioned there. All I'm pointing out is that when our new friend says, "the fact that we know some go to hell proves He did not know how they were going to choose," he's in the realm of OT, having denied EDF.

Riiiggghhhtttt....and God causing men to do things then punishing them for it in no way paints men in a robotic relationship to God...

Remind us again what those scriptures are...The Assyrians was one of them wasn't it? and Judas maybe?

I wonder why we would give God a pass on that behavior that we would throw people in prison for...We would (figuratively) crucify a parent guilty of chaining a child to a bed then beating them for soiling the bed...But God can do this because he is God and above question?

Many things are wrong for man to do specifically because they are not God. If God were to love someone else more than himself, he would be committing idolatry. Men must put God first precisely because God ought to be put first by everyone, including by God. I know OT like you have a problem with this, holding as you do to a view of God which more resembles Greek gods such as Zeus, who have to discover the future as they go along with us down the river of time.

[Littlejoe]

I'm familiar with the OT distinctions mentioned there.

Which you seem to continually ignore

All I'm pointing out is that when our new friend says, "the fact that we know some go to hell proves He did not know how they were going to choose," he's in the realm of OT, having denied EDF.

Which when said this way I have no problem with, but your wording implied OT's believe God is completely clueless and just flying by the seat of his pants...I was just setting the record straight as you can't seem to pass up an opportunity to malign OT.

Many things are wrong for man to do specifically because they are not God. If God were to love someone else more than himself, he would be committing idolatry. Men must put God first precisely because God ought to be put first by everyone, including by God. I know OT like you have a problem with this, holding as you do to a view of God which more resembles Greek gods such as Zeus, who have to discover the future as they go along with us down the river of time.

Which of our beliefs more resemble Greek Gods, yours or mine? Calvinism's view of God strongly resembles the Greek Fates known as Clotho Lachesis and Atropos:

The Fates

The Fates have the subtle but awesome power of deciding a man's destiny. They assign a man to good or evil. Their most obvious choice is choosing how long a man lives. There are three Fates: Clotho, the spinner, who spins the thread of life, Lachesis, the measurer, who choses the lot in life one will have and measures off how long it is to be, Atropos, she who cannot be turned, who at death with her shears cuts the thread of life.

The Fates are old and predate the gods. It is not entirely clear how far their power extends. It is possible that they determine the fate of the gods as well. In any case, not even the most powerful is willing to triffle with them

Amazing similarity to the Predestination of God as defined in calvinism isn't it...

[RBerman]

Which you seem to continually ignore. Which when said this way I have no problem with, but your wording implied OT's believe God is completely clueless and just flying by the seat of his pants...I was just setting the record straight as you can't seem to pass up an opportunity to malign OT.

I don't mean to ignore them. I just don't qualify everything to death every time I discuss a given topic. In the case at hand, I was simply identifying truscott's view as OT, without elaborating all the fine points of OT, which I do acknowledge.

Which of our beliefs more resemble Greek Gods, yours or mine? Calvinism's view of God strongly resembles the Greek Fates known as Clotho Lachesis and Atropos:

The Fates

The Fates have the subtle but awesome power of deciding a man's destiny. They assign a man to good or evil. Their most obvious choice is choosing how long a man lives. There are three Fates: Clotho, the spinner, who spins the thread of life, Lachesis, the measurer, who choses the lot in life one will have and measures off how long it is to be, Atropos, she who cannot be turned, who at death with her shears cuts the thread of life.

The Fates are old and predate the gods. It is not entirely clear how far their power extends. It is possible that they determine the fate of the gods as well. In any case, not even the most powerful is willing to trifle with them

Amazing similarity to the Predestination of God as defined in calvinism isn't it...

The Fates are indeed more like the God of Scripture than Zeus is, in that respect. But God is also much more personable.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Certainly the grace of God through the power of His Spirit can change us. That would fall in the "miracle" department. Apart from that, who's to say how much we really "break out of the mold"? An acorn doesn't superficially look like an oak tree.

The acorn, and the Oak Tree which dropped it to the earth, were NOT created in the IMAGE OF GOD... Perhaps this is where, in the realm of ideas and understandings, we first diverge... Do you think that because of the Fall of Adam, mankind in him is no better than the acorn and the oak? That outside God's Grace, man is determined in his actions by his material and psycho-social environment? And that from this pool God selects His "chosen" for the impartation of His Grace unto salvation?

If THAT is true in your understanding, and I must say that with you using the oak and the acorn example, it makes Calvinist Theology make great sense to me, I say if that is true for you, then we can perhaps resolve our differences in our divergent understandings of the nature of the Fall of Adam, because you think that it obliterated the Image of God in Man, and I think that it merely darkened and tarnished it... In my favor is the account of Genesis where the Forbidden Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was not of evil only, as your understanding would have it, but of BOTH good AND evil... And your favorite quote is from Paul quoting the Prophet Isaiah [I think] "There is none righteous, not one..." etc etc...

Your view to me means that Satan succeeded in destroying God's Image in His creation, and my view, the Eastern Orthodox Christian view held from the beginnings, is that Satan could not destroy the Image of God in man, but only wounded it, which requires that it be healed, and the healing comes in the parable of the Good Samaritan, for the Inn is the Church, and the Inn-Keeper is Her Ministers, and Christ is the Samaritan the Good...

This means that the Church's healing is the long term one, and Christ turns over the wounded to His Body for the ongoing heaLing from sin of those He brings there... In OUR view, the Church IS the Body of Christ Who is Her Head, and so we insist that the healing that is administered in the Mysteries of the Church are themselves the imparting of the Grace of God, even unto the "giving of the Holy Spirit" which the Servant of God Ananias first gave to Saul/Paul of Tarsus... This is why we confess, in the Athanasian Creed, "And [I believe] IN one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church..." The Mystery of the Church is an Article of Faith for us, for in Her is the Grace of God free for all who approach Her in faith... [Remember Simon the Sorcerer who tried to BUY that Grace from Paul??]

So anyway, my friend, that is what I took from your little oak tree acorn analogy of the human condition... Mine is more along the Able and Cain understanding - Some of us offer an acceptable, and others an unacceptable, sacrifice to God... As the Psalm says: "A sacrifice unto God is a broken spirit; A heart that is broken and humbled God will not despise..." This Cain did not have...

Not because he was unable to humble himself, but because he was not willing... For us, God foreknew his unwillingness, and responded to him accordingly... For you, God deprived him of such saving willingness, and condemned him...

God Bless You, my Brother...

Arsenios

[ttruscott]

If one was prone to use the "robot" metaphor (which I am assuredly not), then one would say that the process of sanctification is the process of becoming a robot, because the saints in heaven necessarily never sin. The glorified saints have "lost" the one thing that, in your view, makes our praise acceptable to God! That's one reason I reject any argumentation which plays the "robot" card. (Another reason is that Scripture never makes the "robot" argument, even using a term besides "robot." Scripture has no problem saying that God causes men to do things, and then punishes or rewards them for doing those things.)

"then one would say that the process of sanctification is the process of becoming a robot, because the saints in heaven necessarily never sin. " is not a convincing argument as there is at least three ways one can never sin in heaven;
1. by being created a robot (no one)
2. by developing a perfectly holy character by true free will (angels)
3. by being a saved elect who
a) was created to be able to make, and who did make true free will choices and therefore

b) was not a robot but who

c) fell into sin by a true free will choice of his own thereby losing his free will but

d) in compliance with the promise of election, was saved by the redemptive blood of Christ and by grace, sanctifed, ie had his attenuated (ie not free) will trained and purified by GOD until he was holy, that is willing to always choose GOD's will for his life over evil because he had learned the nature of sin and the suffering it causes.

So you're an Open Theist. Well, at least you're a consistent (four-point) Arminian. Thank you for clarifying your position, which paints a very unBiblical picture of a God who doesn't know, but only guesses.

Thank you RB, I have never heard of the the term open theist before and I must admit at first glance it looks pretty good. I'm a bit dismayed at the supposed Greek influence so more study is needed, sigh.

Gee, when I posted my anti-Arminian statement Post: #6 in my topic: Free Will according to PCE: (Pre-Conception Existence) I was pretty sure I denied believing in any of the Aminian points. I guess you didn't read that....

As far as the picture I paint it is a little beyond some thinking, of course, as a lot of theology is, and is so easily misunderstood,

but I believe GOD knows in intimate, complete and exact (at any level anyone wants to put it) omniscient detail of everything HE decreed to create. If HE did not decree it to be created, it does not exist so HE does not know it except as a possiblitiy. Possibilities are not real, or created, they are just potentialities.

If you want to get into string theory and all that supposing that HE knows everything in the sense of knowing every possibility, but makes every such possibility real (not theory) in parallel universes, well that's beyond me, for sure.

Peace, Ted

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Are you responding to what I wrote..????

Is there life after birth?

You had written:" I tend to object to the idea that GOD needed evil (to be created) to show forth anything..

And I replied that God created and subjected Himself TO creation on the cross...
NOT out of any need whatsoever...
But only out of love...

A.

[ttruscott]

...
LJ

Thanks for this LJ, I'm new to some of these ideas.

Peace, Ted

[Littlejoe]

Thanks for this LJ, I'm new to some of these ideas.

Peace, Ted

No problem Ted...I don't know whether or not you are an Open Theist, but, I felt I needed to correct a misconception about OT that I was reading in RB's reply to you.

LJ

[RBerman]

"then one would say that the process of sanctification is the process of becoming a robot, because the saints in heaven necessarily never sin. " is not a convincing argument as there is at least three ways one can never sin in heaven;
1. by being created a robot (no one)
2. by developing a perfectly holy character by true free will (angels)
3. by being a saved elect who
a) was created to be able to make, and who did make true free will choices and therefore

b) was not a robot but who

c) fell into sin by a true free will choice of his own thereby losing his free will but

d) in compliance with the promise of election, was saved by the redemptive blood of Christ and by grace, sanctifed, ie had his attenuated (ie not free) will trained and purified by GOD until he was holy, that is willing to always choose GOD's will for his life over evil because he had learned the nature of sin and the suffering it causes.

You haven't demonstrated any important moral distinction between being created a robot in the first place, and becoming one through sanctification. If the first is bad, so is the second one. Again, I think the robot analogy is a huge rabbit trail best left untouched.

Thank you RB, I have never heard of the the term open theist before and I must admit at first glance it looks pretty good. I'm a bit dismayed at the supposed Greek influence so more study is needed, sigh.

There are several problems with Open Theism from a Biblical perspective, but this doesn't seem like the thread to unpack that. There are plenty of old threads around here on the topic, though.

Gee, when I posted my anti-Arminian statement Post: #6 in my topic: Free Will according to PCE: (Pre-Conception Existence) I was pretty sure I denied believing in any of the Aminian points. I guess you didn't read that....

I did read it. But as I said before, I suspect that if we dug deeper, we'd find more agreement than you realize between your view and Arminianism. Not that I have anything to gain by you being Arminian, or not for that matter.

As far as the picture I paint it is a little beyond some thinking, of course, as a lot of theology is, and is so easily misunderstood,

but I believe GOD knows in intimate, complete and exact (at any level anyone wants to put it) omniscient detail of everything HE decreed to create. If HE did not decree it to be created, it does not exist so HE does not know it except as a possiblitiy. Possibilities are not real, or created, they are just potentialities.

If you want to get into string theory and all that supposing that HE knows everything in the sense of knowing every possibility, but makes every such possibility real (not theory) in parallel universes, well that's beyond me, for sure.

This sounds closer to Molinism than Open Theism, although in my understanding Molinists don't believe that God actually allows all those alternate universes to exist. Certainly the Bible doesn't take a position on String Theory.

[ttruscott]

You haven't demonstrated any important moral distinction between being created a robot in the first place, and becoming one through sanctification.

Moral distinction, hmmmm. As in one good, the other bad? Haven't thought of it that way.

A robot can't chose, has no will of its own and can only follow its programming. Not bad, just unable to give true praise, love or worship. Unable to have a loving relationship.

But your insistance that a person who looses free will has no will at all is not correct.

Free will ended for all ingenuously innocent people the moment they learned the truth about the nature of GOD and HIS reality because the proof of HIS GLORY destroyed all innocence and ingenuousness upon which free will is based. But it did not destroy the ability to make choices based on our hopes and dreams, which a robot cannot do.

[Faith is not just "not by proof" but also "by hope."
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.]

A saint trained in righteousness as per Hebrews 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. must include the othought that they have trained their s wills to be obedient to their reborn spirit and to always choose within its confines which are, in fact, a limit on their frreedom.

and here:
Romans 12:2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will.
could never apply to a will-less robot but applies very aptly to a person coming out of the will destroying enslavement of sin into conformity with the will of GOD. By Choice.

1 Thessalonians 3:13 So that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints. surely implies that we become holy through our choice to love and to follow GOD, not through the cessation of all will power (the robotic state).

Is a stone holy because it does not choose sin? Is a fish? No, they do not choose sin because they cannot but a fish can still make choices. And the saints still make choices to be holy and their perfection is that their commitment to GOD, in love, means they will never choose sin again.


peace, Ted

[RBerman]

Moral distinction, hmmmm. As in one good, the other bad? Haven't thought of it that way. A robot can't chose, has no will of its own and can only follow its programming. Not bad, just unable to give true praise, love or worship. Unable to have a loving relationship. But your insistance that a person who looses free will has no will at all is not correct.Free will ended for all ingenuously innocent people the moment they learned the truth about the nature of GOD and HIS reality because the proof of HIS GLORY destroyed all innocence and ingenuousness upon which free will is based. But it did not destroy the ability to make choices based on our hopes and dreams, which a robot cannot do.

I don't understand your use of "free will." Someone's possession of free will would not be changed by knowing or not knowing something. But it might be that people might gain knowledge that "free will" doesn't mean what they thought it meant.

[ttruscott]

I don't understand your use of "free will." Someone's possession of free will would not be changed by knowing or not knowing something. But it might be that people might gain knowledge that "free will" doesn't mean what they thought it meant.

This is from post #1 of Free Will for the PCE pov, :) and down a-ways at #2, it speaks of the destructive power of proof. I really dislike the secular definition of free will offered to believers who know the truth about sin slavery etc. So here is what I was taught...what do you think?

The Elements of a True Free Will Choice:

1. Free will can't be coerced:
Nothing in their created nature could force them to choose love or hate, good or evil.

Nothing in their experience could force them to choose love or hate, good or evil.

Nothing in their understanding or knowledge of reality could force them to choose good or evil, love or hate.

In other words, they had to be completely and truly ingenuously innocent.

[Ref: definition of ingenuous: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ingenuousness as: 1. Lacking in cunning, guile, worldliness; artless. 2. Openly straight forward or frank; candid.

2. Consequences must be known but not proved:
The person must understand the full consequences of their choice or it is a guess, not a choice. “What will happen if I choose left or right, the red pill or the blue pill?” must be answered in full detail.

But "PROOF" of the nature of the consequence would compel or coerce the person to choose what was proven to be the best for them. If the answer “death here,” “life there,” was proven, which would you choose? The weight of knowledge would destroy the effect of a true ‘free' will choice.

Therefore they must know, but without proof, the nature of the consequences of their choice. Such a choice, might be described as making a choice based on faith.

Now, ask yourself: is this possible on earth? Of course, I'm open to questions and suggestions, :)

Peace, Ted

[RBerman]

This is from post #1 of Free Will for the PCE pov, :) and down a-ways at #2, it speaks of the destructive power of proof. I really dislike the secular definition of free will offered to believers who know the truth about sin slavery etc. So here is what I was taught...what do you think?

The Elements of a True Free Will Choice:
1. Free will can't be coerced:
Nothing in their created nature could force them to choose love or hate, good or evil.
Nothing in their experience could force them to choose love or hate, good or evil.
Nothing in their understanding or knowledge of reality could force them to choose good or evil, love or hate.
In other words, they had to be completely and truly ingenuously innocent.

I think you have a problem when you divorce your will from your nature. A good tree bears good fruit, and a bad tree bears bad fruit. Good soil grows a good plant.

2. Consequences must be known but not proved: The person must understand the full consequences of their choice or it is a guess, not a choice. “What will happen if I choose left or right, the red pill or the blue pill?” must be answered in full detail.But "PROOF" of the nature of the consequence would compel or coerce the person to choose what was proven to be the best for them. If the answer “death here,” “life there,” was proven, which would you choose? The weight of knowledge would destroy the effect of a true ‘free' will choice.Therefore they must know, but without proof, the nature of the consequences of their choice. Such a choice, might be described as making a choice based on faith.
Now, ask yourself: is this possible on earth?

Knowledge comes in degrees and is always imperfect on this earth. But I disagree that knowledge negates free will. Rather, the truth (including knowledge of the truth) sets us free.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Originally posted by RBerman

Certainly the grace of God through the power of His Spirit can change us. That would fall in the "miracle" department. Apart from that, who's to say how much we really "break out of the mold"? An acorn doesn't superficially look like an oak tree.

The acorn, and the Oak Tree which dropped it to the earth, were NOT created in the IMAGE OF GOD... Perhaps this is where, in the realm of ideas and understandings, we first diverge... Do you think that because of the Fall of Adam, mankind in him is no better than the acorn and the oak? That outside God's Grace, man is determined in his actions by his material and psycho-social environment? And that from this pool God selects His "chosen" for the impartation of His Grace unto salvation?

If THAT is true in your understanding, and I must say that with you using the oak and the acorn example, it makes Calvinist Theology make great sense to me, I say if that is true for you, then we can perhaps resolve our differences in our divergent understandings of the nature of the Fall of Adam, because you think that it obliterated the Image of God in Man, and I think that it merely darkened and tarnished it... In my favor is the account of Genesis where the Forbidden Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was not of evil only, as your understanding would have it, but of BOTH good AND evil... And your favorite quote is from Paul quoting the Prophet Isaiah [I think] "There is none righteous, not one..." etc etc...

Your view to me means that Satan succeeded in destroying God's Image in His creation, and my view, the Eastern Orthodox Christian view held from the beginnings, is that Satan could not destroy the Image of God in man, but only wounded it, which requires that it be healed, and the healing comes in the parable of the Good Samaritan, for the Inn is the Church, and the Inn-Keeper is Her Ministers, and Christ is the Samaritan the Good...

This means that the Church's healing is the long term one, and Christ turns over the wounded to His Body for the ongoing heaLing from sin of those He brings there... In OUR view, the Church IS the Body of Christ Who is Her Head, and so we insist that the healing that is administered in the Mysteries of the Church are themselves the imparting of the Grace of God, even unto the "giving of the Holy Spirit" which the Servant of God Ananias first gave to Saul/Paul of Tarsus... This is why we confess, in the Athanasian Creed, "And [I believe] IN one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church..." The Mystery of the Church is an Article of Faith for us, for in Her is the Grace of God free for all who approach Her in faith... [Remember Simon the Sorcerer who tried to BUY that Grace from Paul??]

So anyway, my friend, that is what I took from your little oak tree acorn analogy of the human condition... Mine is more along the Able and Cain understanding - Some of us offer an acceptable, and others an unacceptable, sacrifice to God... As the Psalm says: "A sacrifice unto God is a broken spirit; A heart that is broken and humbled God will not despise..." This Cain did not have...

Not because he was unable to humble himself, but because he was not willing... For us, God foreknew his unwillingness, and responded to him accordingly... For you, God deprived him of such saving willingness, and condemned him...

God Bless You, my Brother...

Arsenios

This question goes to the heart of all your replies, I should think, NO?

Arsenios

[OtherCheek]

I've been thinking about why God allows evil. Many non-Christians think that the existence of evil is evidence that God does not exist.

God allows evil to bring about a greater good. For example, Paul was arrested and thrown in jail for preaching the gospel. The greater good that God brought out of this evil thing was that the gospel was advanced throughout the imperial guard and the believers became more bold to proclaim the gospel (Philippians 1:12-14). Joseph's brothers committed evil by selling Joseph into slavery. God brought good out of this evil thing by using Joseph to preserve the lives of people during the famine.

God allows evil in order to show how amazing His love is. Even though everyone is a sinner and deserving of eternal damnation, God demonstrated His love towards sinners by sending His Son to die on the cross for sinners. God loves sinners in spite of their sin. Our natural inclination is to love only good people. We don't want to love wicked people. The fact that God loves us even though we are sinners should make us appreciate God's love. If there were no such thing as sin and if everyone were morally perfect, then we would not appreciate God's love as we do now.

Some people say that God allows evil because He wanted to give people free will. If God didn't allow evil, then people would not have free will. They would be forced to love God; they would be robots. As you probably know, this is called the Free Will Defense. I have some questions for those of you who hold to the Free Will Defense. Why does free will entail the ability to do evil? I was just wondering because God has free will and He doesn't have the ability to sin. Do the saints in heaven have the ability to sin? If not, does this mean that they don't have free will?

I believe that evil is as eternal as good is. The two have always existed. On the one hand you have righteousness and obedience to God, and on the other hand you have wickedness and rebellion from God. Opposition is an eternal principle, IMO.

Facing temptation in this mortal world serves the purpose of refining and proving the children of men. Not proving us to God, for he already knows. But proving ourselves.