Pages

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Arminian marionettes

BOSSMANHAM SAID:

“Wrong, Hays, you said ‘that scarcely relieves the mad scientist of responsibility for creating a homicidal monster’.

Try not to be obtuse. It’s clear from what I said that the mad scientist endowed the creature with libertarian freewill, knowing that the creature would exercise that freedom in homicidal ways. The mad scientist is responsible for the final outcome.

“So, to stay within the bounds of your analogy, Frankenstein created a good monster. The monster used it's will to sin.”

Beside the point. The mad scientist would be culpable for creating him in full knowledge of the evil outcome.

You continue to obtusely act as if, in a transaction involving to parties, only one can be culpable. Since I assume you’re not quite that dense, you’re being evasive because you can’t defend your position.

“God allows this for the reason I stated, relational. A true relationship requires two agents, not one agent and his marionette.”

Aside from begging the question in favor of libertarianism, your conclusion doesn’t even follow from libertarianism. There’s no requirement that God made free agents who choose evil. If they were truly free (as you define it), they are also free to choose good. You constantly fail to explain how libertarian freedom forces God to create sinful agents.

“William Lane Craig makes pretty much the same argument. ”

i) Craig rejects the freedom to do otherwise as a necessary condition of libertarian freedom.

ii) Craig is also a Molinist. But in that event, God chooses which possible world to instantiate, not the human agent. And the human agent has no freedom to do otherwise within the actual world, since the actual world represents one possible choice to the exclusion of others.

“As Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell put it: ‘The same freedom that makes it possible to enter a genuinely trusting and obedient relationship with God also makes it possible for us to go our own way and disobey him. God allows the latter in order to enable the former’.”

i) That doesn’t require God to create sinners. He’s at liberty to create the subset of free agents to freely choose good over evil.

ii) Is God also free to do either good or evil? If not, then, by your definition, God can’t enter into a “genuine relationship” with us.

If, however, God is free to do either good or evil, then he’s untrustworthy–in which case you can’t entering into a genuinely trusting relationship with him.

“No, he did not bring it to pass because He knew it would happen, He knew it would happen because it actually was going to happen.”

That’s a red herring. I didn’t say he brought it to pass because he knew it would happen. Try to pay attention. I said he foresaw the evil outcome. He was in a position to prevent the evil outcome. But he went right ahead and made it happen by creating the world where he foresaw that outcome.

At a minimum, that makes him responsible for the outcome. It didn’t happen all by itself.

“God not stopping the consequences of sin is, again, because of the genuine relationship He desires and the just judgement for sin.”

You keep falling back on this false dichotomy. Is there some reason you’re so obtuse?

Even if we stipulate to libertarian freedom, that doesn’t mean sin is inevitable. It could go either way, remember? You act as though the dice are loaded to result in a sinful combination every time they’re rolled. That’s hardly consistent libertarianism. If libertarianism were true, then rolling the dice would sometimes result in a sinful combination, and sometimes not. So God is free to instantiate the sinless outcomes rather than the sinful outcomes. And selecting that subset of possible outcomes does nothing to infringe on the libertarian freedom which you ascribe to human beings. If libertarianism were true, then the odds are that some outcomes would be sinless. If every outcome results in evil, then the dice were loaded.

Try to think through the implications of your position.

“No the question is: How is God not culpable for evil He knows will happen? The answer is, it is part of the curse humanity brought on itself. God created us good.”

Appealing to the curse is hardly sufficient to explain why the Arminian God created a world with a curse in the first place. You have yet to explain the necessity of the given. The curse was not a given. Why did God create a world which he would then have to curse? Appealing to the curse takes his decision to create the world for granted. As such, it fails to explain the decision to create such a world.

Try to be logical, even if it hurts.

“Sounds like moral relativism to me.”

It’s a mark of your superficiality that you think motives are irrelevant to morality.

“No, because the surgeon and mugger will do two completely different things with the scalpel. The surgeon will heal with it, the mugger will kill with it. Two different actions.”

Which confirms my point. Both use knives to cut someone open, but for different reasons. One has a good reason, the other has a bad reason.

“Just like killing 6 million innocent Jews is always wrong even if your motives are good.”

Which assumes there are good motives for killing the Jews. Are you a skinhead?

“Uh, yes it is. James 1:13-17. So, in your reply, you’re propping up one tendentious assertion with another tendentious assertion.”

Since I recently did a post on the correct interpretation of that verse, your reply is maladroit. Try again.

“Funny, me being an Arminian and all. The difference is I don't think God determined anyone to sin or be damned in any logical order.”

According to Arminianism, God knowingly creates hellbound sinners although he was free to spare them that fate by never making them in the first place. So how does that make Arminianism more loving than Calvinism?

“God determining what we do is like a puppeteer determining what a puppet does. That argument seems pretty straighforward to me, Steve. I guess I thought someone with your amazing skillz would be able to deduce that.”

i) Since puppets are inanimate objects, I “deduce” some fatal equivocations in your comparison. Try again.

ii) Moreover, if Arminianism is true, then you’re must a puppet (as you define it) since God determined what you would do by creating the world he foresaw. In the world he made, everything has to unfold as he foresaw it. Nothing can be otherwise.

27 comments:

  1. Boss. had said

    “God determining what we do is like a puppeteer determining what a puppet does. That argument seems pretty straighforward to me, Steve. I guess I thought someone with your amazing skillz would be able to deduce that.”

    What is worse, that the puppets' culpability is based on their desires of heart which are subject to the puppeteer's determination.

    Thus, if humans are blameworthy on the basis of their desires and calvinism's god is the originator of these desires then calvinism's god is blameworthy for the actions that spring from these desires. This is how calvinism's god is the author of sin.

    Steve, you ought to abolish the greater good defense and abandon the doctrines of grace. It's really getting silly.

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  2. a helmet

    Does this mean that you have an alternative to the greater good defense?

    You keep saying that the greater good defense is silly, but you never give an alternative for us to investigate.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Whether you are an Arminian or a Calvinist, the greater good defense is the only theodicy that holds water.

    AH has been singing this tune for awhile now, and has yet to propose an alternative. Of course if he were actually to do so he probably knows it would be shredded within minutes. It's always easier to snipe at the opposition than to propose an alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  4. a helmet,

    That doesn't sound like Calvinism as I usually hear it described & defended.

    In Calvinism God doesn't put evil desires into our hearts the way that he puts good desires in our hearts. We are born with twisted desires, inherited from Adam, and God gives us new hearts to some. That pushes the question back to Adam.

    If a Calvinist says "God put it in Adam's heart to rebel", then you're right. But "God ordained the Fall" doesn't translate to that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mitch & Neal,


    You keep saying that the greater good defense is silly, but you never give an alternative for us to investigate.

    I apologize for this. It is right, I've been criticizing the reformed greater good defense on the blogosphere a lot throughout the last weeks without providing positive counter arguments. I'm currently working on a book on the subject and it is going to be a big one. That's btw a reason why I've rarely been posting lately. Since I'm working on the computer, it is always tempting and nearby to just check out some blog news. And since on this blogosphere the topic has been reformed theodicy for a while now (just see how many post at this blog are labeled "Theodicy" for instance), I occasionally feel inclined to make some remarks on that. Anyway, I'm continuing my writing project on the subject of evil and suffering and hope to make it well. It is a lot of work. But note as well, just because one disappreciates arminianism and finds many faults with it, doesn't cover calvinism's faults. Therefore I see no reason why one shouldn't be justified in criticizing the greater good defense even without providing a fully worked out alternative. Two wrongs don't make a right.

    Jugulum,

    Then where do the human desires originate from? Do they originate from some realm beyond God's control? Doesn't predestination include the predestination of thoughts? According to Calvinism, the answer is yes, even the most wicked desires and ideas are subject to God's pre-determination and hence, have their origin in God.

    It doesn't matter in what way/what means/by what methods etc the evil desires "get into human hearts". That's not the final problem. The final problem is, that these desires are based on God's will, there is no way around that.

    This is what I mean with calvinism making God, who is holy, the author of sin.

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  6. AH said:

    ... just because one disappreciates arminianism and finds many faults with it, doesn't cover calvinism's faults.

    This is a dodge. What you perceive as faults is really just an expression of your "dis-appreciation".

    AH said:

    Therefore I see no reason why one shouldn't be justified in criticizing the greater good defense even without providing a fully worked out alternative. Two wrongs don't make a right.

    You argue like an atheist criticizing Christianity when he has no epistemological or ethical ground to stand on himself. It's like a man sitting in a sinking boat pointing at the man in the boat next to him and telling him that his boat has structural flaws and is going to sink. Yet it continues to float while his own boat fills with water.

    AH said:

    Then where do the human desires originate from? Do they originate from some realm beyond God's control?

    But doesn't Arminianism posit precisely that? Arminians claim that evil is indeed beyond God's control.

    ReplyDelete
  7. IIRC, I've heard both RC Sproul and James White express ignorance over what happened with Adam & the Fall and the nature of his will and how it happened.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Neal,

    Arminians claim that evil is indeed beyond God's control.

    That's not what I said. I posed the question whether evil originates from somewhere beyond God's control. The underlying question is where the evil desires come from to begin with. And Calvinism locates them in God's decree and will, hence makes God the author of sin.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jugulum,


    I've heard both RC Sproul and James White express ignorance over what happened with Adam & the Fall and the nature of his will and how it happened.


    Probably because leading calvinism to its logical ends makes God the author of sin and calvinists want to deny this conclusion via definition. The final step of reasoning in their system simply must not be done: "No crossing over!"

    Hence, the silence.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Because being silent where the Bible is silent is the sign of failed theology?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jug writes: "If a Calvinist says "God put it in Adam's heart to rebel", then you're right. But "God ordained the Fall" doesn't translate to that."

    Can you explain how the origin of that rebellion arose from some "other source" in a system whereby God is not only sovereign over all things but where His will is manifest in all things?

    What is this source, then? Man himself? Did man create himself? Satan? Didn't God create Satan and ordain his fall as well?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Arminians need to get clear on what prominent Arminians have admitted:

    According to Olsen, God doesn't ordain sins, but "every human act, including sin, is impossible without God's cooperation" (Arminian Theology, 121).


    According to Olson: “God is the first cause of whatever happens; even a sinful act cannot occur without God as its first cause…” (122)

    Olson thus:

    God cooperates with the sinners who commit [evil acts]. But that does not mean God is the efficacious cause of them or wills them, except according to his 'consequent will.' God allows them and cooperates with them unwillingly in order to preserve the sinners' liberty" (122-23).


    But Olson also says:

    "In other words, whatever happens, including sin, is at least allowed by God, but if it is positively evil, and not only evil to a mistaken understanding, it is not authored or authorized by God. God permits it 'designedly and willingly', but not efficaciously" (Olson 121). "Rather, God not only allows evil designedly and willingly, ... but he also cooperates without being stained by the guilt of sin" (olson 122).

    [Unwillingly/willingly?????]

    "For someone to lift his or her hand requires God's concurrance, God loans, as it were, the power sufficient to lift a hand, and without God's cooperation even such a trivial act would be impossible." (Olson, 117). [switch out hand for a rapists erect penis]

    "sin requires the divine concurrance, which is necessary to produce every act; because nothing whatever can have any entity except from the First and Cheif Being, who immediately produces that entity. The concurrance of God is not his immediate inful into a second inferior cause, but it is an action of God immediately flowing into the effect of the creature, so that the same effects in one and the same entire action may be produced simultaneously by God and creature." - Jacob Arminius in Arminian Theology, Olson, p.122

    "However, in the case of sinful or evil acts, whereas the same event is produced by both God and the human being, the guilt is not transferred to God, because God is the effecter of the act but only the permitter of the sin itself." (122).

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Can you explain how the origin of that rebellion arose from some "other source" in a system whereby God is not only sovereign over all things but where His will is manifest in all things?"

    Partial answer: No. I can't.

    Slightly more informative answer: I do see a pretty natural difference between God willing something & bringing it about by permitting it, and willing something & bringing it about by direct action. But that doesn't answer your specific question.

    Confession of ignorance: I honestly don't know how to think about "the source of rebellion", particularly when it comes to people like Satan and Adam. I'm not sure what it means. I'm not strong on the philosophical categories--and I don't know how much trust we should put in our philosophical categorizations about it. (By the way, I don't try defending Calvinism through this kind of philosophical theology, either. E.g., I don't use a "sovereignty means this, so therefore ___" approach.)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Part 1:

    Try not to be obtuse.

    Haha, I get it, irony.

    It’s clear from what I said that the mad scientist endowed the creature with libertarian freewill, knowing that the creature would exercise that freedom in homicidal ways. The mad scientist is responsible for the final outcome.

    Gee Steve, that seems awful obtuse. Is the scientist responsible for what the monster does with its own free will? Just because the scientist knew what would happen doesn't mean he is responsible for decisions the monster made. Perhaps the scientist knows the only way to have a real relationship with said monster is to grant it free will so that it can choose or choose otherwise. Upon doing this, the creator scientist abdicates any reponsibility of that monster's will when he gives it over to its own will. It is simply your contention that makes the

    It seems like you're also stuck in the thinking that God had to have a temporal thought process before creation.

    The mad scientist would be culpable for creating him in full knowledge of the evil outcome

    Yet not responsible for the action, because the monster is the one who formulated and performed the action. There is no issue in saying God created the pontentiality for evil in the creation of free agents who are able to disobey.

    If I am ever attacked by a mob of people, I will know that that wouldn't have happened unless God had created people. But if God hadn't created people, I wouldn't be there being attacked. Now while it would suck being attacked, I am personally pretty grateful that God created people so I exist. At least I know that mob is attacking me because of their own twisted desire and not because God is the ultimate will willing people to attack me. I know I can pray to God to get the mob to stop. How could I pray to God when I know that He is the one who put it into the minds of all those people, or influenced them, or changed their desires, or whatever you want to spin it as, to attack me? Why would I want to? If God is all good, and He determines everything, then everything is all good, even bad things.

    There’s no requirement that God made free agents who choose evil.

    I never said there was, however, in the creation of volitional wills He created beings that could perform evil.

    ReplyDelete
  15. William Lane Craig

    Your two points don't change the fact that he uses the same argument as I do. Some of the finer points of the theodicy he and I would disagree on, but the causality of evil in bot of our systems is never traced back to God.

    And the human agent has no freedom to do otherwise within the actual world, since the actual world represents one possible choice to the exclusion of others

    That's not an accurate description of Molinism. It is the free wills of the agents that determine the way each possible world acts. God does choose which world to initiate, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still the human agent that has free will. To say their free will is taken away because God chooses only one possible world is ridiculous. Like in Arminianism, God knows the actions of free agents because he foresees the action, not because Him foreseeing determines the action. WLC certainly affirms free-will, although he may not be a full fledged LWF-er.

    That doesn’t require God to create sinners

    I never said God created sinners. In fact I specifically spoke against that notion.

    He’s at liberty to create the subset of free agents to freely choose good over evil.

    That is determinism, Steve! If He creates agents who choose good over evil then those choices have been determined. He has created agents who only choose good. That isn't volition.

    Is God also free to do either good or evil?

    God is good. His nature is what defines good. He is the objective good. He necessarily does good because He is good. There is not an objective "good" outside of God. Evil is what is against God. So the premise of the question is faulty.

    This question is also loaded, since doing good or evil is not what makes us free, but the ability to do or do otherwise. God could have done otherwise than to create the universe, such as not creating the universe. Both decisions would have been good. In heaven, we will be able to do or do otherwise, but we will be free of temptation and our sin nature. So in heaven I might choose to get strawberry ice cream or chocolate ice cream. Both are good decisions and are both free.

    I didn’t say he brought it to pass because he knew it would happen. Try to pay attention. I said he foresaw the evil outcome. He was in a position to prevent the evil outcome. But he went right ahead and made it happen by creating the world where he foresaw that outcome.

    And I said knowing something will happen and allowing it to take place do not make you the cause of the actions of free creatures. God is not the cause because He foresaw and created anyway. He is only the cause of the free agent.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Part 3:

    At a minimum, that makes him responsible for the outcome

    So this makes God culpable for the acts of free agents how? God is the first cause of everything. Therefore He did create the potentiality for evil, in that without anything there would be no evil. But God is not culpable for that evil because it originates outside of Him. It was not present at creation, it entered through the volitional wills of His creatures.

    Even if we stipulate to libertarian freedom, that doesn’t mean sin is inevitable.

    Steve, are you in too much of a hurry typing? I never argued sin was inevitable. That's part of volitional will. Nothing made the Devil's sin inevitable. Nothing made Adam's sin inevitable. I haven't decided whether Adam's sin makes ours inevitable. What we do know is that all do sin, whether it's inevitable or not.

    Appealing to the curse is hardly sufficient to explain why the Arminian God created a world with a curse in the first place.

    In the very sentence you are responding to I specifically say God created things good. That means He created a world without a curse and cursed it because of the actions of Adam and Eve.

    It’s a mark of your superficiality that you think motives are irrelevant to morality

    No I just think there are objectively good and bad things and how you feel about it when you do it doesn't matter.

    Which confirms my point. Both use knives to cut someone open, but for different reasons. One has a good reason, the other has a bad reason.

    But I stated two different actions. The similarity of a knife makes no difference. One action is healing, one is killing. One brings restored life, the other death. Healing is an action, killing is another action. I'm surprised at you, Steve, really. I never took you for a moral relativist before.

    Which assumes there are good motives for killing the Jews.

    Nice attempt to put words in my mouth. I cited the reasoning Hitler used. Getting imperfections out of the gene pool is a good motive. The action of killing Jews is bad. There can be several different actions for the same motive. For instance, perhaps one day scientists will be able to remove imperfections from our genes. They may do it in a morally ambiguous way. The act of making people's genetic illnesses a thing of the past is good.

    Since I recently did a post on the correct interpretation of that verse, your reply is maladroit

    Your interpretation was maladroit. Just because you post on something doesn't mean the final infallible interpretation has been reached.

    According to Arminianism, God knowingly creates hellbound sinners although he was free to spare them that fate by never making them in the first place. So how does that make Arminianism more loving than Calvinism

    They weren't determined beforehand to be damned. God allowed them the choice. Just because God allows something doesn't mean He wants it to happen.

    Since puppets are inanimate objects, I “deduce” some fatal equivocations in your comparison. Try again.

    Puppets give the appearance of animate objects when a puppeteer sticks their hand in it. Similar to what Calvinism has God doing with us. My point is this world is a farce if determinism is true.

    Moreover, if Arminianism is true, then you’re must a puppet (as you define it) since God determined what you would do by creating the world he foresaw.

    God wouldn't have foreseen it if He didn't create it. He would have foreseen Himself not creating anything. You can't seem to get it into your head that God foreknows things because they will happen.

    God Bless

    ReplyDelete
  17. bossmanham - God wouldn't have foreseen it if He didn't create it. He would have foreseen Himself not creating anything. You can't seem to get it into your head that God foreknows things because they will happen.

    Vytautas - What you say limits the freedom of God because he can only do what is going happen. He is captive to the way things will be.

    ReplyDelete
  18. What you say limits the freedom of God because he can only do what is going happen. He is captive to the way things will be.

    No, God can do whatever He wants, and He knows all things He is going to do and all things He is going to allow. Not a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  19. bossmanham - No, God can do whatever He wants, and He knows all things He is going to do and all things He is going to allow. Not a problem.

    Vytautas - If he foreknows things because they will happen, rather than he foreknows things because he planned it that way, then he can only do what is going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If he foreknows things because they will happen, rather than he foreknows things because he planned it that way, then he can only do what is going to happen

    I would say you have set up a false dilemma here. Note also I never said the events He knows about He didn't cause. He could also actively cause things and know they will happen because He caused them. Creation, for instance.

    I will contend that no sinful actions of God's creatures originate in the mind of God. He knows of those because they originate in the minds of creatures. He can direct those actions in any way He wants, such as with Joseph's brothers. God is not limited by anything.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jugulum,

    Because being silent where the Bible is silent is the sign of failed theology?

    No, it is a sign of failed theology to boldly claim that the "greater good defense" solves the logical problem of evil but then be silent when it comes to discuss this more in depth. That's pretty weak.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hmm. Perhaps. Be careful with that, though--I would be surprised if there is any area of theology were you won't come to a point where you have to remain silent, when discussing it in-depth.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jugulum,

    -Because being silent where the Bible is silent is the sign of failed theology?-

    No, it is a sign of failed theology to boldly claim that the "greater good defense" solves the logical problem of evil but then be silent when it comes to discuss this more in depth. That's pretty weak.

    8/27/2009 4:17 AM

    That's so weak. If it solves the logical problem it does in virtue of rules of logic.

    It also is not silent after it mentions greater good. For the Bible tells us many of them. God uses evil to test his servants (cf. 1 Peter 1:7; James 1:3), to discipline them (Hebrews 12:7-11), to preserve their life (Genesis 50:20), to enable them to comfort others (2 Corinthians 1:3-7), and to give them greater joy when suffering is replaced by glory (1 Peter 4:13). (The above Scriptural examples were taken from John Frame’s “Doctrine of God,” pg. 170.)

    Now, it may be silent at points that require knowledge of certain metaphysical truths that are beyond the ken of finite or finite and fallen humans. Are you going to dogmatically proclaim as essysolutionism that there are no metaphysical distinctions regarding the plan of God and his God-justifying reasons for permitting evil? That seems like a devil of a burden to argue. Furthermore, we should expect mystery and ignorance about some of the details of God and his plan. Given our finitude and his infiniteness, given his incomprehensiability, given the use of analogous language, and archtypal/echtypal theology, we should expect mystery and silence. Who are we to contend with the all the almighty?


    I must admit that it is ironic to see you of all people complain when someone doesn't resort to easysolutionism! Has your schtick been proven to be a tool to use to critque others but is not applied to yourself? Seems so.

    ReplyDelete
  24. AH said:

    No, it is a sign of failed theology to boldly claim that the "greater good defense" solves the logical problem of evil but then be silent when it comes to discuss this more in depth. That's pretty weak.

    The Dude said:

    That's so weak. If it solves the logical problem it does in virtue of rules of logic.

    I would add that even if scripture didn't give us some of the ways in which evil serves the greater good, the greater good defense would still solve the logical problem of evil. God is not obligated to reveal to us the morally sufficient reason. If scripture says there is a morally sufficient reason, that is enough.

    We keep coming back to this: Does AH believe that there is no morally sufficient reason for the existence of evil? What is his theodicy? He says he doesn't have it fully worked out, but surely he can give us some broad outlines of his thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  25. bossmanham: "Is the scientist responsible for what the monster does with its own free will? Just because the scientist knew what would happen doesn't mean he is responsible for decisions the monster made."

    "Bill": If you knew that your neighbor would kill his wife at 10:30 pm unless you intervened, would you not be held morally responsible for not doing anything?

    bossmanham: "Perhaps the scientist knows the only way to have a real relationship with said monster is to grant it free will so that it can choose or choose otherwise."

    "Bill": How's that follow? God's omniscient, remember? Just in view of this the realitionship is unlike any "real" relationship we know of.

    bossmanham: "free will so that it can choose or choose otherwise."

    "Bill": So you disagree with libertarian free will thinkers like William Lane Craig and Dave P. Hunt? You think you could argue them down and show them that they don't allow for "real" relationships?

    bossmanham: "It seems like you're also stuck in the thinking that God had to have a temporal thought process before creation."

    "Bill": How would you go about answering a McKenna (a libertarian), or a Hasker's (a libertarian) critque of the timelessness resolution? If you can't access the academic journals, here's an online piece:

    http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/Foreknowledgefreedom.html

    bossmanham: "Yet not responsible for the action, because the monster is the one who formulated and performed the action. There is no issue in saying God created the pontentiality for evil in the creation of free agents who are able to disobey.:

    "Bill": That's not what sophisticated Arminians tell us when exploding myths about Arminianism. For example:

    According to Olsen, God doesn't ordain sins, but "every human act, including sin, is impossible without God's cooperation" (Arminian Theology, 121).


    According to Olson: “God is the first cause of whatever happens; even a sinful act cannot occur without God as its first cause…” (122)

    Olson thus:

    God cooperates with the sinners who commit [evil acts]. But that does not mean God is the efficacious cause of them or wills them, except according to his 'consequent will.' God allows them and cooperates with them unwillingly in order to preserve the sinners' liberty" (122-23).


    But Olson also says:

    "In other words, whatever happens, including sin, is at least allowed by God, but if it is positively evil, and not only evil to a mistaken understanding, it is not authored or authorized by God. God permits it 'designedly and willingly', but not efficaciously" (Olson 121). "Rather, God not only allows evil designedly and willingly, ... but he also cooperates without being stained by the guilt of sin" (olson 122).

    [Unwillingly/willingly?????]

    "For someone to lift his or her hand requires God's concurrance, God loans, as it were, the power sufficient to lift a hand, and without God's cooperation even such a trivial act would be impossible." (Olson, 117). [switch out hand for a rapists erect penis]

    "sin requires the divine concurrance, which is necessary to produce every act; because nothing whatever can have any entity except from the First and Cheif Being, who immediately produces that entity. The concurrance of God is not his immediate inful into a second inferior cause, but it is an action of God immediately flowing into the effect of the creature, so that the same effects in one and the same entire action may be produced simultaneously by God and creature." - Jacob Arminius in Arminian Theology, Olson, p.122

    "However, in the case of sinful or evil acts, whereas the same event is produced by both God and the human being, the guilt is not transferred to God, because God is the effecter of the act but only the permitter of the sin itself." (122).

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanks, The Dude. You're the man, dude. Totally.

    *ahem*

    By the way, I'd also like to point out that we're mixing two issues together.

    One is whether the greater good defense is a sufficient explanation for the general Problem of Evil (which all Christians must explain!): Why does God allow suffering & evil? Why does God (at least sometimes) appoint people to suffering? To going through evil circumstances?

    And we all have to answer that, whether we're Calvinist or not. Because evil happens, God doesn't stop it when he can, and at least some evil acts are specifically part of God's predetermined plan.

    I have no trouble boldly saying that the greater good defense explains it.

    Another issue is how God does or doesn't ordain evil events. Whether he actively wills that they will happen (and what "actively wills" even means!). Whether he merely watches & doesn't stop them, whether he has a purpose in allowing them, whether he decides that they'll happen and so he brings it about somehow without causing it (or without directly causing it), whether he directly causes it, etc. And if he does decide that evil will happen, how does it work that he isn't sinning himself?

    That's where Calvinists have no consensus about what happened with Adam. And that's where I wouldn't boldly state that the greater good defense solves it. (Actually... Was anyone saying that? I've lost track.)

    That's also what Steve is addressing here.

    ReplyDelete
  27. And apparently, from the quote by Roger Olsen in that link, even some Arminians make a distinction between ordaining/willing and directly causing!

    ReplyDelete