rogereolson says:
October 23, 2011 at 4:49 pm
According to classical Calvinism, God foreordained and rendered the fall of Adam and Eve certain by withdrawing the grace they needed not to sin. In other words, the whole horrid universe of sin that followed their fall was in the plan and will of God–including the eternal suffering of the wicked in hell.
Does Olson think God did not anticipate the consequences of his creative actions? Does Olson think God did not intend the consequences of his creative actions? Is God an unwilling participant in world history? A hostage to his creation?
Another thing you don’t mention is God’s love for all people and his desire that all be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). What kind of God would choose to save only a portion of fallen humanity IF grace is irresistible? Such a God would be a monster, IMHO.
Where does 1 Tim 2:4 say God’s love is unrequited? Where does 1 Tim 2:4 say God’s desire is thwarted? Where does 1 Tim say God doesn’t save everyone because his grace is resistible?
How does God love all people if he knowingly makes some people who will suffer eternally in hell? How does he desire their salvation if he creates them in the certain knowledge of their doom? If that outcome is the inevitable result of his creative action? Weren’t they essentially fated to be damned the moment he played the tape of their foreseen life and death?
While in my heart, I want to hold out hope that people who say such things are Christians, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe it.
ReplyDeleteOlsen continues to use divisive language that characterizes "my God" as a "monster" and one that he cannot or will not submit to.
In his heart, Olsen has already condemned Calvinists to hell by using such language and I don't know if continued interaction with this hyper anti-Calvinist will be fruitful.
He seems quite capable of intellectually understanding our position, yet he lacks the ability to separate his preconceived and emotional traditions from his.
Almost as if he doesn't intellectually understand his own position.
Of course, we must be cognizant of our ability to do the same as well regardless of the issue. We must never lose sight of that and begin to think ourselves "better" than him because we "get it".
It is only by the grace of God that truth was revealed to us and apart from the grace of God we would be damned to Hell.
"How does God love all people if he knowingly makes some people who will suffer eternally in hell? How does he desire their salvation if he creates them in the certain knowledge of their doom? If that outcome is the inevitable result of his creative action? Weren’t they essentially fated to be damned the moment he played the tape for their foreseen life and death?"
ReplyDeleteTo the first sentence: you think God does not love all people then?
Where do you see God creating people that will be doomed? Wouldn't that mean God, if not a monster, is at least crazy?
Why do you think that "Fate" equals "foresight"? Could God not foresee something that He didn't do?
This post reminds me of what Leftow says towards the end of this video:
ReplyDeleteHere’s a transcribed brief excerpt:
Interviewer: If you felt that it was certain that God knew for sure that all of the evil would occur at one time or another, that God still went ahead and did it being certain that those things were going to happen, 100% sure, maybe not exactly how but that they will happen, does that affect His perfection?
Leftow: It depends on how He would know it and why it was certain. One theory, the one that is associated with Augustine and Calvin, would say God could know it and it was certain because He had foreordained all of it; He decided we would do every evil we do, He had decided that the earthquakes would occur just when and how they would occur and would kill everybody they kill. If that’s how it was, then I couldn’t believe that God was morally perfect. No, I would cease to believe in God if I came to believe that was the only way to understand what was going on here.
Hey Holdon,
ReplyDelete“To the first sentence: you think God does not love all people then?”
To put it bluntly: Yes.
“Where do you see God creating people that will be doomed?”
The presumption in Scripture is that God hates all evil doers (Ps 5:5, 11) and the Bible teaches explicitly that God makes some people for damnation. (Proverbs 16:4, Romans 9:22-23)
“Wouldn't that mean God, if not a monster, is at least crazy?”
It’s quite a leap to go from ‘God does not love everyone who he creates’ to ‘God is a monster and/or crazy’. You’d have to fill in some missing premises. Besides, you have evidence against the view that this God is a monster and/or crazy. Think of the beauty of the God of Scripture who died for sinners and took the curse upon himself so that by his wounds we are healed! Think of your own salvation. It’s the same God. Even if it’s difficult to understand it’s God speaking and so we must humbly bow the knee.
“Why do you think that "Fate" equals "foresight"? Could God not foresee something that He didn't do?”
We normally think of ‘foresight’ in human categories where we describe the ability to predict the future with some degree of precision. So we might say that a running back had the foresight to see that the defensive lineman was going to get blocked by his teammate so he could probably get by him but this foresight is fallible. His teammate could have missed the block. But God is not like this. He ‘foreknows’ the future (even this is anthropomorphic since he’s outside time but let’s not complicate things…).
Essential to ‘knowing’ is that the proposition known must be true. It hardly makes sense that I ‘know’ Jesus never existed if Jesus did exist. Likewise, if God knows that a creature will not freely choose to accept his offer of salvation it is true and therefore certain that that creature will not freely choose to accept his offer. Furthermore, if God creates such a creature knowing full well that the he will not be saved then he creates him knowing that he will spend eternity in Hell. It is certain from before this person is ever created that he will go to Hell. The only way to deny this is to go the route of Open Theism and deny divine foreknowledge.
All Christians have to wrestle with these facts. Not just Calvinists.
Hope that helps and God bless.
So, God does not love all people. Isn't Jn 3:16 saying the opposite?
ReplyDeleteI don't see anything in your verses that God explicitly makes people for damnation. The first is to be understood consequentially rather than intentionally, and the second has no subject "God" making anything for destruction.
If I look at my own salvation, how can I conceive that others would be precluded from it? Was the sacrifice not big enough? Or the love? Or the saving grace too short? How can I reduce God's goodness?
I think God can full well know before hand, without Him causing it necessarily.
But creating something in order to destroy it seems sheer madness to me.
There is a vast difference between the doctrine of predestination and the doctrine of God's foreknowledge. God's foreknowledge only contstitutes determinism if a person confuses cause and effect. God knowing what decisions we will make does not negate the free will we have in making them.
ReplyDeleteIf the doctrine of double-predestination was true, then God would indeed be monstorous. He would still be worshiped as God, because that wouldn't change his intrinsic Godness, but he would be harder to love. However, a person could believe that God knew sin would happen, knew of the earthquakes, and disasters, and diseases that would plague his creation, and enter into it anyway. We could believe that he would (and did) work within in that framework, to guide a created people that were capable of freely choosing him, because that was the only way it could happen. There are certainly simpler and less cruel ways of gaining automaton servants.
"Does Olson think God did not anticipate the consequences of his creative actions? Does Olson think God did not intend the consequences of his creative actions? Is God an unwilling participant in world history? A hostage to his creation?"
ReplyDeleteWhat if God could have predetermined everything that happens, but chose to let some events occur through the unfolding of secondary causes and human free will? In this scenario some things would happen which God did not directly intend (and which He merely permits to happen), but God wouldn't be an unwilling participant because he had previously decided to allow creation that space. Neither could God be considered a 'hostage' of creation.
"How does God love all people if he knowingly makes some people who will suffer eternally in hell?"
If we take an atemporal view of God's relationship to time, God's foreknowledge would be based on God's being able to observe the whole timeline 'from above', and His being able to perceive His entire action in creation as one complete whole. So God's foreknowledge of future damnation would not be a case of God anticipating a certain outcome and deciding to create anyway, but rather a case of God acting and reacting to a certain outcome (which he didn't necessarily intend, as per the first scenario) in the future, at the instant the outcome becomes certain.
HOLDON SAID:
ReplyDelete“So, God does not love all people. Isn't Jn 3:16 saying the opposite?”
You seem to be equating “all people” with the “world.” But that’s not how standard Greek lexicons define kosmos in Johannine usage. Try again.
“I don't see anything in your verses that God explicitly makes people for damnation.”
Are you claiming that God doesn’t intend the consequences of his actions?
“If I look at my own salvation, how can I conceive that others would be precluded from it? Was the sacrifice not big enough? Or the love? Or the saving grace too short? How can I reduce God's goodness?”
A universalist would level the same objection to Arminianism.
“I think God can full well know before hand, without Him causing it necessarily.”
A red herring.
“But creating something in order to destroy it seems sheer madness to me.”
Annihilationism is not the issue.
I'll add my little response to Steve's:
ReplyDelete“So, God does not love all people. Isn't Jn 3:16 saying the opposite?”
I don’t think it does. We must remember the context in which John is writing. Most of his readers would have been Jews far removed from any Calvinism and Arminianism debates. These Jews were in the habit of thinking that they, compromising the chosen nation of God, were the sole object of God’s affection. They forgot all about God’s plan to disciple the nations found in the OT. Jesus’ statement is a declaration that not only this nation but all nations are part of God’s plan of redemption and therefore ‘whosoever [aka not just among the Jews but also among the Gentiles] believers in him shall not perish but have everlasting life’.
I've given my preferred reading but there are other Calvinist options to choose from that fit the passage well.
“I don't see anything in your verses that God explicitly makes people for damnation. The first is to be understood consequentially rather than intentionally, and the second has no subject "God" making anything for destruction.”
In Pro 16:4 the purpose of the wicked is given. If I say that cookies are for eating I mean to say that they have a particular purpose and that is ‘to be eaten’. Likewise, if God says that the wicked are for the day of destruction then isn’t he saying that the wicked are in the ‘for destroying at a later time’ box? And in Rom 9 I’m not sure how you could say that God’s making some for destruction is not in view. Who else but God could be the subject of creating people for various uses? What are we to make of the phrase ‘vessels of wrath fit for destruction’?
But perhaps you could exegete those verses for me and I’d be in a better position to understand where you’re coming from since I’m really not getting it.
“If I look at my own salvation, how can I conceive that others would be precluded from it? Was the sacrifice not big enough? Or the love? Or the saving grace too short? How can I reduce God's goodness?”
On the Arminian view, why couldn’t God save everyone that he wanted to save? Was he not all powerful? Is his saving power too weak? Was the cross of Christ not enough to achieve everlasting life for those whom he died for? Was the sacrifice not big enough? Why doesn’t God simply keep people alive and show his unmatchable goodness to them until they believe and make sure no one goes to Hell? Why does God make those whom he foreknew would never accept him and spend an eternity in Hell? Why did God harden Pharaoh’s heart if he sincerely wanted him to repent?
“I think God can full well know before hand, without Him causing it necessarily. “
Please explain.
“But creating something in order to destroy it seems sheer madness to me.”
Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
“For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?”
“Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?”
For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.
(Romans 11:33-36 ESV)
J.D. said...
ReplyDelete“What if God could have predetermined everything that happens, but chose to let some events occur through the unfolding of secondary causes and human free will?”
How does God “predetermine” some events through human freewill? Do you mean libertarian freedom? If so, how is that predeterminable?
“In this scenario some things would happen which God did not directly intend (and which He merely permits to happen), but God wouldn't be an unwilling participant because he had previously decided to allow creation that space. Neither could God be considered a 'hostage' of creation.”
What he permits, he intentionally permits. So your buffer collapses back into what God intends. Hence, God still intended the fall (assuming your statement takes Olson’s referent for granted).
“If we take an atemporal view of God's relationship to time, God's foreknowledge would be based on God's being able to observe the whole timeline 'from above', and His being able to perceive His entire action in creation as one complete whole. So God's foreknowledge of future damnation would not be a case of God anticipating a certain outcome and deciding to create anyway, but rather a case of God acting and reacting to a certain outcome (which he didn't necessarily intend, as per the first scenario) in the future, at the instant the outcome becomes certain.”
Recasting the issue in timeless terms doesn’t salvage Olson’s objection. God isn’t merely “reacting” to the outcome, as if that eventuates all by itself. Rather, God’s creative fiat is a necessary condition for the outcome to eventuate. And the outcome is avoidable if God refrains from making a world with that outcome.
The outcome is certain if God instantiates that timeline, rather than some other timeline. And whatever God does, God intends.
theartofbeingbroken said...
ReplyDelete“There is a vast difference between the doctrine of predestination and the doctrine of God's foreknowledge. God's foreknowledge only contstitutes determinism if a person confuses cause and effect. God knowing what decisions we will make does not negate the free will we have in making them.”
Since my response to Olson wasn’t predicated on determinism or predestination, you’re tilting at windmills.
“If the doctrine of double-predestination was true, then God would indeed be monstorous.”
All assertion, no argument.
“However, a person could believe that God knew sin would happen, knew of the earthquakes, and disasters, and diseases that would plague his creation, and enter into it anyway. We could believe that he would (and did) work within in that framework, to guide a created people that were capable of freely choosing him, because that was the only way it could happen.”
How is the freewill defense relevant to natural disasters? It’s not as if God violated the freewill of the volcano, tornado, tsunami, &c. by preventing natural disasters like that from killing men, women, and children Why isn’t the Arminian God “monstrous” for either failing to give prospective victims advance warning?
For David Houston:
ReplyDeleteIf a writer writes World in his opening chapter (Jn 1:9,10), he would most likely mean the same thing thereafter. And I think Jn 4:42 decides the matter against "world = Jews".
Of the vessels of wrath it does by no means say that God "fitted them for destruction". They fitted themselves for destruction.
The "O depth of riches" is about God's grace and mercy to be extended to all. It doesn't say anything about God causing all the vile actions of man.
And for Steve:
And no, God doesn't intend the man made consequences of His actions. What God does and makes, man spoils. That doesn't mean God intended it to be spoiled in the first place.
Or do you think God intended evil?
Holdon said...
ReplyDelete"And no, God doesn't intend the man made consequences of His actions. What God does and makes, man spoils. That doesn't mean God intended it to be spoiled in the first place."
So God didn't intend that outcome even though that outcome was a foreseeable and preventable consequence of God's action?
Is God accidental prone?
"So God didn't intend that outcome even though that outcome was a foreseeable and preventable consequence of God's action?"
ReplyDeleteRight.
So you think God is clinically insane? Is that your position?
ReplyDelete"So you think God is clinically insane? Is that your position?"
ReplyDeleteIf the position is that He creates something just to destroy it (and no, I was talking about annihilationism: red herring), then yes, He is insane.
Or what is your take on the sanity of a person who makes something just to destroy it?
"Or what is your take on the sanity of a person who makes something just to destroy it?"
ReplyDeleteWhere are you getting the "just to" from.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteFrom Steve's post:
"How does God love all people if he knowingly makes some people who will suffer eternally in hell? How does he desire their salvation if he creates them in the certain knowledge of their doom? If that outcome is the inevitable result of his creative action? Weren’t they essentially fated to be damned the moment he played the tape for their foreseen life and death?"
And David Houston's:
"the Bible teaches explicitly that God makes some people for damnation."
Holden,
ReplyDeleteI was discussing the ramifications of Olson's own position, given his operating assumptions. That's the frame of reference, not my own position. Try to follow the bouncing ball.
"How does God “predetermine” some events through human freewill? Do you mean libertarian freedom? If so, how is that predeterminable?"
ReplyDeleteWhat's predetermined is not the specific acts of will, but the fact that some events would come about through free-will.
"What he permits, he intentionally permits. So your buffer collapses back into what God intends. Hence, God still intended the fall (assuming your statement takes Olson’s referent for granted)."
Well, in my scenario what God directly intends is that there be a space within creation for some events to come about through secondary causes and free will. God would not intend any particular outcome of the decision to create that space. If I as a father give my teenage son control over his savings account, and the son squanders the savings, it's not as though I intended for him to squander the savings. What I intended was to give him control of the account, perhaps in order to encourage him to take responsibility. I might nevertheless permit the savings to be squandered, but I don't think one could say that I intended for that to happen.
So in the case of the fall, if God's granting humans free will resulted in the fall, which God permitted to happen, that does not mean God directly intended for the fall to happen. The intention was to give humans free will, whereas the fall was merely permitted, consistent with the original decision.
"Recasting the issue in timeless terms doesn’t salvage Olson’s objection. God isn’t merely “reacting” to the outcome, as if that eventuates all by itself. Rather, God’s creative fiat is a necessary condition for the outcome to eventuate."
In my scenario in a sense God is reacting to an outcome that eventuates all by itself, as long as it is clear that the capacity of creation to bring about events by itself was originally granted to it by God. In this case, God's creative fiat would be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for certain things to happen. From the moment God creates space for free will, any events determined by acts of will are conditioned both by God's creative fiat and by those acts of will.
"And whatever God does, God intends."
I think the analogy with the parent granting his teenage son control over the savings account shows that that is not necessarily the case. God brings about a world with space for secondary causes and free will, which He intended to bring about, but God didn't intend any particular outcome of that decision.
Steve:
ReplyDelete"I was discussing the ramifications of Olson's own position, given his operating assumptions. That's the frame of reference, not my own position."
Well, what IS your position then?
Holdon,
ReplyDeleteI didn't see a "just to" in there. What they said was logically consistent with God having *other* purposes in mind for creating besides their destruction. So I ask, where do you get "just to" from?
Holden,
ReplyDeleteI don't have to discuss my position right now. It's sufficient to focus on one position at a time.
So you have yet to explain how my analysis of Olson's position was off-the-mark.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteWhat other purposes do "they" think of? (I couldn't read their minds).
Now, if you think God needed to have firewood of the damned to light the fire of His glory. How would that glory be better than the saving kind?
Steve,
ReplyDelete"I don't have to discuss my position right now. It's sufficient to focus on one position at a time.
So you have yet to explain how my analysis of Olson's position was off-the-mark."
I don't even know what your analysis amounts to. Sorry, can't make much sense of it then.
Holdon,
ReplyDeleteOkay, I'm out. I see you want to be evasive and play games. I asked *you* how *you* got a "just to" out of what they said since it is a matter of *objective logical fact* that nothing they said implied a "just to." So, tell your jokes and use your sarcasm on someone else, I'll go looking for a serious interlocutor.
" I'll go looking for a serious interlocutor."
ReplyDeleteHi there ;)
Paul,
ReplyDelete"So, tell your jokes and use your sarcasm on someone else, I'll go looking for a serious interlocutor."
I don't think I was telling any jokes at all. To me the "just to" was implied and I cited the references. If you can see something else than "just to" in their arguments I would certainly like to know. But I don't think you can, nor can I. So, it's "just to". Now, I anticipated the "firewood" story. That is no joke. Heard it before.
God bless!
“If a writer writes World in his opening chapter (Jn 1:9,10), he would most likely mean the same thing thereafter. And I think Jn 4:42 decides the matter against "world = Jews".”
ReplyDeleteThat would be silly! Of course, I wasn’t arguing that world=Jews. I was arguing that ‘world’ refers to all the sinful nations of the world that need salvation. I contrasted that with the prevalent view of the Jews of that time that believed that only the Jews were included in God’s plan of salvation and not ‘gentile sinners’.
“Of the vessels of wrath it does by no means say that God "fitted them for destruction". They fitted themselves for destruction.”
You mean to tell me that in an analogy which refers to God as the potter and people as clay that the underlying idea is that God takes a hands-off approach and the clay molds itself? You need to read the passage again.
“The "O depth of riches" is about God's grace and mercy to be extended to all. It doesn't say anything about God causing all the vile actions of man.”
It comes at the end of a section that includes the doctrine of election and reprobation in Rom 9. You were arguing that because it seemed like ‘sheer madness’ to you that it would be impropriate for God. But that’s ridiculous. God is wiser than you. You’re not his counselor and you have not known his mind. Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?
In terms of your argument with Paul… would you agree that if I said that knives are for preparing food that it means I don’t think that they can’t also used for protection?
C’mon now. Are we reasoning together or not?
Holdon:
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that God knows that future?
Do you believe that God knows where someone born on February 12, 2015 will spend eternity?
Do you believe that God is somehow "unloving" or "monstrous" for creating someone whom He knows will spend eternity in hell?
You can't escape the charge either, unless you are an open thiest. At some point, you must admit that God knows where everyone will spend eternity and yet He creates them anyway.
God knew that Hitler would kill millions of Jews. He created him anyway.
God knew that Satan would decieve Eve, yet He created him anyway.
God knew that Adam's sin would curse a perfect creation until the end of this age, yet He created him anyway.
So, either God had a purpose for all of that or He is now trying to clean up the mess (and failing the performance review)
I choose the first option.
David:
ReplyDelete"I was arguing that ‘world’ refers to all the sinful nations of the world that need salvation."
OK. So, in your opinion God does/did love all people.
"You mean to tell me that in an analogy which refers to God as the potter and people as clay that the underlying idea is that God takes a hands-off approach and the clay molds itself? You need to read the passage again."
Do you really think God is a bad Potter? That He makes bad pottery? If you read the passage carefully and compare with the msg. in Jer. 18 and 19, you will see indeed that the Potter (re)forms (calvinists must love this process!) the clay as long as it is moldable. If the clay hardens itself however, then it will be broken (chapter 19).
It is in that context which the apostle cites, that vessels (nations, see 18:8)are made (and remade if they repent). Therefore, Paul argues then those repenting nations will also be as that other vessel (18:4)and then see how that thought develops in Rom 9:24 and further. The "answering against the Potter" refers therefore to the objectionable pride of the elect people against the Sovereign Potter who chooses to bring the gentiles under grace. Depth of riches indeed!
Jeff:
ReplyDeleteGod did not "create" millions of Jews. They were procreated, not created. Creation was in 6 days a long time a ago.
God did create Adam and He knew Adam would fail. But Adam was made "very good". So, God did not intend Adam to fall, did He? So, why did He make him (and Satan as well) then?
The short answer is, I think, because there is no other way for God to create in His image and likeness (not speaking of Satan here, but Man). God cannot create another God, of course. Man, is the (forgive the term) next best thing. But that brings with it, certain risks: Man could go wrong. But that was not God's fault or intent.
HOLDON SAID:
ReplyDelete"So, God did not intend Adam to fall, did He?"
If God didn't intend the end-result of his actions, then God is mentally incompetent.
“OK. So, in your opinion God does/did love all people.”
ReplyDeleteAgain, that’s not what I said. I’m forced to conclude that you’re either incompetent or unable to have discussion on the topic. I’ll type it again and I want you to read closely: God does not love all people. However, he does not love only Jewish people. He loves people of all cultures. If I say that I like people regardless of their race it doesn’t mean that I don’t like certain people who – obviously – are a member of a particular race. Let’s not play games.
“Do you really think God is a bad Potter? That He makes bad pottery?”
Of course not! God is a good potter who makes everything according to its purpose. Even the wicked for the day of destruction!
And since I’m not in the business of walking into traps rather than answering your second question allow me to respond with a few questions of my own… did God make Hitler? Stalin? Mussolini? Satan? Do you think God makes ‘bad pottery’?
“If you read the passage carefully and compare with the msg. in Jer. 18 and 19, you will see indeed that the Potter (re)forms (calvinists must love this process!) the clay as long as it is moldable. If the clay hardens itself however, then it will be broken (chapter 19).
It is in that context which the apostle cites, that vessels (nations, see 18:8)are made (and remade if they repent). Therefore, Paul argues then those repenting nations will also be as that other vessel (18:4)and then see how that thought develops in Rom 9:24 and further. The "answering against the Potter" refers therefore to the objectionable pride of the elect people against the Sovereign Potter who chooses to bring the gentiles under grace. Depth of riches indeed!”
Actually Paul is not using the potter imagery in the same way as Jeremiah. He applies it to the lives of individuals rather than nations. He doesn’t deal with the nation of Israel but rather particularizes it to address two individuals: Jacob and Esau. He also deals with the individual Pharaoh. He also explicitly denies that it is up to their wills to decide whether or not they are an object of blessing or cursing:
“So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” – Rom 9:16-18 ESV
If you rip the analogy out of the context in which Paul is using it then it destroys the logic of the text. For example: If it is up to man to decide if he will be hardened or not then why would Paul anticipate the question in v19, “You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" Why would he anticipate that question if the obvious answer is that anyone can resist his will?
The context here is Roger Olson. In his new book Against Calvinism, he repeatedly says God foreknows what evils happen and can also prevent them but chooses not to, instead he chooses to "permit" them.
ReplyDeleteSteve's responses crush Olson. If others want to move the goal posts for him, that's fine, but let's first admit Olson has been buried.
Steve:
ReplyDelete"If God didn't intend the end-result of his actions, then God is mentally incompetent."
Never read that God repented? Didn't you know that God has decreed that His intent will not always come out, because of creating His Masterpiece called Man in His image and likeness? Now, if you want to say He should have created programmable robots instead, that's fine. But that wouldn't be anywhere near to His image and likeness.
HOLDON SAID:
ReplyDelete"Never read that God repented?"
Are you a Mormon or an open theist?
"Didn't you know that God has decreed that His intent will not always come out..."
A nonsensical dichotomy inasmuch as the decree is God's intent.
"Now, if you want to say He should have created programmable robots..."
Actually, Arminians act just like programmable robots when they constantly resort to these rote, groupthink metaphors.
David:
ReplyDelete"God does not love all people. However, he does not love only Jewish people. He loves people of all cultures."
So, now "world" = "all cultures". So, Jesus is merely the Savior of all cultures??? I mean no serious exegete or translator has it that way. Therefore, don't bring up incompetence.
"God is a good potter who makes the wicked for the day of destruction!"
Are you serious? How is "wicked" good?
"“You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
Because the entire argument of Paul is that God wants to see faith. Israel, although God's people despite all the selection: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses' intercession, did not attain, but stumbled.
Is the Crucifixion good or evil?
ReplyDeleteAgain, I did not say world= all cultured. I said that the ‘world’ refers to people of all sinful nations that need salvation and not simply to Jewish people. God’s love is not without exception (as you see it) but without distinction (he does not only love people of a particular nation: Israel). And clearly it isn’t being used in the sense you’re thinking of since how could Jesus love every single person without exception when he expressly tells us in John 17:9 that he doesn’t pray for them?
ReplyDeleteSo, again, are you unwilling or unable to understand my position?
I’m done with this conversation. You’re clearly unable to respond to arguments. You’d prefer to simply misinterpret your interlocutors, throw out statements without argument or exegesis, and ignore the parts you find difficult.
Piggybacking on David's statement, there's a difference between what a word means and what it refers to.
ReplyDeleteSteve:
ReplyDelete"Is the Crucifixion good or evil?"
What do you think Steve?
I think you're ducking the question. That's what I think.
ReplyDeleteDavid:
ReplyDeleteBye, bye.
You can't or won't enter into my arguments. What is your exegetical reasoning to say that "World" is "people of all cultures", just so that you can exclude the so-called "non-elect"? So, that you limit God's love and Christ's work? Anyway, you're done. Not a very sympathetic crowd here.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteSo smart Steve! Good boy, guy.
J.D. SAID:
ReplyDelete“What's predetermined is not the specific acts of will, but the fact that some events would come about through free-will.”
That’s a rather idiosyncratic use of “predetermined.” Why not say God initiates a stochastic process? After creating the initial conditions, it takes on a life of its own.
“Well, in my scenario what God directly intends is that there be a space within creation for some events to come about through secondary causes and free will. God would not intend any particular outcome of the decision to create that space. If I as a father give my teenage son control over his savings account, and the son squanders the savings, it's not as though I intended for him to squander the savings. What I intended was to give him control of the account, perhaps in order to encourage him to take responsibility. I might nevertheless permit the savings to be squandered, but I don't think one could say that I intended for that to happen.”
If you knew exactly how your son was going to spend his savings when you set up the account in his name and let him make withdrawals, then, yes, you intend the result. The result is something you take into consideration. Is that worth it?
Now, the result may not be your intended *goal*. It may just be a means to an end. But you still intend the side effects, even if that’s just the incidental cost of achieving your goal.
“So in the case of the fall, if God's granting humans free will resulted in the fall, which God permitted to happen, that does not mean God directly intended for the fall to happen. The intention was to give humans free will, whereas the fall was merely permitted, consistent with the original decision.”
You can’t reasonably partition God’s intention to give humans freewill from God’s knowledge of what they’d do with the freewill he gave them. This isn’t a double blind experiment. Rather, that’s part of the initial cost/benefit analysis. Does the value of freedom outweigh the abuse of freedom? God may not intend the result in isolation to his overarching goal, but he still intends each contributing factor.
If you have a plan, you intend each element of the plan, as a way to realize your objective.
“In my scenario in a sense God is reacting to an outcome that eventuates all by itself, as long as it is clear that the capacity of creation to bring about events by itself was originally granted to it by God.”
Even if God initiates a stochastic process, as long as God knows the outcome, and takes that into account, then he’s not “reacting” to the outcome. Rather, that was a calculated effect.
“God brings about a world with space for secondary causes and free will, which He intended to bring about, but God didn't intend any particular outcome of that decision.”
If God knows which particular results his creative fiat will generate, even if that’s a chain-reaction involving some free variables, then he intended that outcome rather than some alternative result.
"If God knows which particular results his creative fiat will generate, even if that’s a chain-reaction involving some free variables, then he intended that outcome rather than some alternative result."
ReplyDeleteBut what if God decides to set a process in motion for which he does not know the particular outcome? That would be part of his self-limitation in creating space for the world to be truly other than God and not simply an extension of himself.
That's open theism. On that view, God rolls the dice. Let's hope God lucky rather than rolling snake eyes.
ReplyDelete"But what if God decides to set a process in motion for which he does not know the particular outcome? That would be part of his self-limitation in creating space for the world to be truly other than God and not simply an extension of himself."
ReplyDeleteToot! Toot! All aboard the Open Theism Train! Where we goin'? Nobody knows!
"That's open theism. On that view, God rolls the dice. Let's hope God lucky rather than rolling snake eyes."
ReplyDeleteBut what if all possible outcomes are known to God, even if He chooses not to know which particular one will eventuate, and He has a reaction for each outcome which will result in the fulfillment of his plans?
"Toot! Toot! All aboard the Open Theism Train! Where we goin'? Nobody knows!"
ReplyDeleteActually, it would be more like "We know where we're headed, but what route will we take to get there? Let's find out!"
I actually haven't read any open theism publications. These ideas just kind of occurred to me on their own.
ReplyDelete“Actually, it would be more like "We know where we're headed, but what route will we take to get there? Let's find out!"”
ReplyDeleteSaying that God knows all the possible outcomes is hardly any help. Would it comfort you if you were driving and lost control of your vehicle to realize that the possibilities were that you could come to a safe stop or you could go through the windshield or you could hit a child as you slow down or... ?
If God leaves the future open then he must simply takes a backseat and tries to enjoy the ride. “Will my precious creatures be saved? Will they commit gratuitous evils? I sure hope not! Oh me oh my, how I wish I knew the fate of my creation!”
"I actually haven't read any open theism publications. These ideas just kind of occurred to me on their own."
ReplyDeleteMakes sense. Most people haven't. But can you see where this sort of thinking gets you? Scary stuff! Who wants a 'God' like that? Does scripture speak of deity in this manner?
Compare what you've been saying with Eph 1-3, Isaiah 46:10, Ps 115:3, etc.
J.D. SAID:
ReplyDelete"But what if all possible outcomes are known to God, even if He chooses not to know which particular one will eventuate, and He has a reaction for each outcome which will result in the fulfillment of his plans?"
i) A gambler knows all possible outcomes, but he can still lose his shirt.
ii) Why assume each concrete outcome will leave God with an option that results in the fulfillment of his plans? God has to play the hand his libertarian creatures have dealt him. What if the deal him a losing hand? Sophie's Choice?
Open theism could easily generate intractable moral dilemmas.
iii) In addition, God himself suffers no risk. Rather, he's exposing his creatures to immeasurable risk. Irreparable harm. That's not something he can gauge in advance. And risk management presumes risk assessment.
"i) A gambler knows all possible outcomes, but he can still lose his shirt."
ReplyDeleteYes, because the gambler didn't come up with all possible outcomes. If he had, I think you can be pretty confident they'd all result in a good outcome for him.
"ii) Why assume each concrete outcome will leave God with an option that results in the fulfillment of his plans?"
I'd chalk that up to omniscience.
"iii) In addition, God himself suffers no risk. Rather, he's exposing his creatures to immeasurable risk. Irreparable harm."
Again, in setting up a stochastic process I'm sure God would only allow those outcomes which result in the fulfillment of his plans, which we can be confident from Scripture include ultimate felicity for many, if not all of his (human) creatures.
J.D. SAID:
ReplyDelete“Yes, because the gambler didn't come up with all possible outcomes. If he had, I think you can be pretty confident they'd all result in a good outcome for him.”
That depends on what you think generates the possible outcomes in libertarian freedom. Is the ability to do otherwise itself what gives rise to alternate possibilities?
Or does the freedom to do otherwise simply mean the human agent is free to choose from a fixed range of preexisting options?
Like a mother who tells her boy, “You can choose between lima beans, spinach, turnips, or parsnips.”
Well, what if he’d rather have Häagen-Dazs?
Put another way, is God the creamery who makes the different flavors we are then allowed to choose from, or is the human agent the creamery? Which side of the Baskin-Robbins counter are we on? Do we make the product, or select the product?
“I'd chalk that up to omniscience.”
You already denied that God knows the future. So it’s more a case of chalking down.
“Again, in setting up a stochastic process I'm sure God would only allow those outcomes which result in the fulfillment of his plans, which we can be confident from Scripture include ultimate felicity for many, if not all of his (human) creatures.”
i) Scripture doesn’t warrant your confidence inasmuch you’re not reasoning from Scripture. Rather, you’re resorting to a stipulative methodology in which you postulate that God limits his knowledge; that God knows all possibilities, but doesn’t know the future–as well as ad hoc postulates that limit the potential damage. You then attach Biblical promises to this imaginary construct.
ii) Libertarians generally take the position that human choices aren’t real choices unless they have consequences. If God protects us from the consequences of our choices, then we’re not really free. It’s a fenced playground. Minimizing risk minimizes freedom.
If you can only do what God allows you do to, then it’s unclear why libertarianism is preferable to predestination.
"Or does the freedom to do otherwise simply mean the human agent is free to choose from a fixed range of preexisting options?"
ReplyDeleteI am sympathetic to Timothy O'Connor's suggestion that freedom comes in degrees. While theoretically humans might always have the freedom to do otherwise, in practice our range is limited to choices which are meaningful given our constitution, past experience and current preoccupations. It's theoretically possible that my next choice will be to give all my money to a random stranger and spend the rest of my days flapping my arms like a chicken in random places, but in practice that's not really a live option for me.
So I'm comfortable with the idea of freedom as the choice between a (relatively) limited range of possibilities. It's certainly better than the notion that each of my choices was scripted from before time began. Even if the choice my mom gives were only between four different kinds of vegetables, I would prefer to have that choice rather my mom dictating that I only eat a specific vegetable.
"Libertarians generally take the position that human choices aren’t real choices unless they have consequences. If God protects us from the consequences of our choices, then we’re not really free. It’s a fenced playground."
There is genuine risk for individuals in this scheme. God's ultimate triumph involves a redeemed people on a redeemed world, but whether an individual ends up in that group will be determined by his/her free choices.
Now you might say there might be a possibility that everyone would choose wrong, so God would end up without a redeemed people. But given the way we're put together, the way we interact with others and the way we are influenced by others, that would not seem to be a live option. That's where God's prior selection of possible outcomes would come into play.
"If you can only do what God allows you do to, then it’s unclear why libertarianism is preferable to predestination."
A (comparatively) limited range of choices is preferable to no choice at all, or being compelled to make a specific choice.
"Scripture doesn’t warrant your confidence inasmuch you’re not reasoning from Scripture."
ReplyDeleteScripture promises THAT there will be a redeemed people on a renewed Earth at the end of time, with God dwelling among them. At least at this stage of my studies, I don't see it specifying exactly how God goes about ensuring that result. Just like the creeds affirm that Jesus was fully God and fully man, without specifying exactly how that works, so I can affirm the eschatological promises of Scripture while exploring the various possibilities for how exactly those will play out.
If I become convinced through my studies that the scenario I am currently considering would make the fulfillment of Scriptural promises impossible, or that Scripture explicitly contradicts key tenets of that scenario, I will abandon it.
Well I missed a lot in the days before God decreed that I revisit the page and post the response that he dictated I would give to the response that he dictated you would give to the response that he dictated I would give to the post that he originally determined you'd make. Here goes:
ReplyDelete" STEVE SAID:
theartofbeingbroken said...
“There is a vast difference between the doctrine of predestination and the doctrine of God's foreknowledge. God's foreknowledge only contstitutes determinism if a person confuses cause and effect. God knowing what decisions we will make does not negate the free will we have in making them.”
Since my response to Olson wasn’t predicated on determinism or predestination, you’re tilting at windmills."
Your response to everything is predicated on determinism. Don't try to avoid that. The doctrine of election rests squarely on the shoulders of determinism (or predestination, if you will). The problem I'm having with the bulk of your responses is that you don't actually have a response, just a reason that you won't address someone else's point.
STEVE SAID:
ReplyDelete"“If the doctrine of double-predestination was true, then God would indeed be monstorous.”
All assertion, no argument."
A comment directly relating to your OP, leading into my next statement. An object of rhetoric requiring no response. The argument followed.
Do you really require a proof of the assertion? Go look up any definition of monstrous and apply it.
"“However, a person could believe that God knew sin would happen, knew of the earthquakes, and disasters, and diseases that would plague his creation, and enter into it anyway. We could believe that he would (and did) work within in that framework, to guide a created people that were capable of freely choosing him, because that was the only way it could happen.”
How is the freewill defense relevant to natural disasters? It’s not as if God violated the freewill of the volcano, tornado, tsunami, &c. by preventing natural disasters like that from killing men, women, and children Why isn’t the Arminian God “monstrous” for either failing to give prospective victims advance warning?"
The vast bulk of the problems with the world are a result of decisions made by people. When I was referring specifically to natural disasters, though, I was not making a free-will argument. I was making a "this is how the world works" argument. Tectonic shifting is required. The consequences of tectonic shifting are volcanoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis. My argument was that these consequences are not specifically guided by God in each incident with malicious intent. Now, to answer your question (which you lack the courtesy of debate to do for others), the distinction lies in intent. The monstrous action is in engaging in an activity specifically intended to bring harm and misery, vs. allowing an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence. Aside from that, if we go back to Genesis, we see that beyond this, God did indeed curse the Earth. Is there a need beyond this for him to direct specific incidents? To put a fine point on it, we are responsible for the fall, and everything that follows is therefore a consequence of that. God has intervened plenty. He's warned plenty. If people have failed to heed or pass on those warnings, that's on us, not God.
What I really don't get is how you can espouse Calvinist doctrine while at the same time making posts that refer to people's historical choices, or the Israelites "forgetting" to carry God to the rest of the world. If it's God's will, it's God's will. They didn't forget, God just didn't really want them to.
It keeps bringing to mind what an old prof once told me: The problem with being a Calvinist is that you have to live like you're not.
Hopefully God will decide that you'll respond and he'll send me back to read it when I'm done doing whatever he decides I should be doing in the meantime. If I don't, well, it's because God didn't think that what he had for you to say was important for me to read in order for my understanding of him to develop the way he wants it to.
THEARTOFBEINGBROKEN SAID:
ReplyDelete"Your response to everything is predicated on determinism. Don't try to avoid that. The doctrine of election rests squarely on the shoulders of determinism (or predestination, if you will)."
Maybe you lack the elementary sophistication to know what a tu quoque argument is. I don't have to critique Olson on my own grounds. I don't have to judge him by my own theological standards. In this post it's sufficient for me to critique Olson on his chosen grounds, not mine. And that's exactly what I've done.
If you think otherwise, document where in my post my response to Olson was predicated on determinism. Quote where I did that.
theartofbeingbroken said...
ReplyDelete“Do you really require a proof of the assertion?”
Yes, it’s called pulling your own load.
“Go look up any definition of monstrous and apply it.”
You beg the question because you have no argument.
“Aside from that, if we go back to Genesis, we see that beyond this, God did indeed curse the Earth. Is there a need beyond this for him to direct specific incidents? To put a fine point on it, we are responsible for the fall, and everything that follows is therefore a consequence of that. God has intervened plenty. He's warned plenty. If people have failed to heed or pass on those warnings, that's on us, not God.”
Does your God warn people to evacuate an area before a massive earthquake, volcano, or tsunami strikes?
Are you claiming that tectonic activity is the result of the fall? If so, where do you find that in the terms of the curse? Did God curse Adam and Eve with plate tectonics?
“What I really don't get is how you can espouse Calvinist doctrine while at the same time making posts that refer to people's historical choices, or the Israelites ‘forgetting’ to carry God to the rest of the world. If it's God's will, it's God's will. They didn't forget, God just didn't really want them to.”
Irrelevant to the topic of the post.
J.D. SAID:
ReplyDelete“I am sympathetic to Timothy O'Connor's suggestion that freedom comes in degrees. While theoretically humans might always have the freedom to do otherwise, in practice our range is limited to choices which are meaningful given our constitution, past experience and current preoccupations. It's theoretically possible that my next choice will be to give all my money to a random stranger and spend the rest of my days flapping my arms like a chicken in random places, but in practice that's not really a live option for me.”
So on your view, freewill doesn’t create its own possibilities or opportunities. It can only play the hand it was dealt. To raise. To call. To fold.
“So I'm comfortable with the idea of freedom as the choice between a (relatively) limited range of possibilities. It's certainly better than the notion that each of my choices was scripted from before time began.”
How is that “certainly better” than the notion that a benevolent, omniscient God planned your life? Other than your Lilliputian vanity and egotism, what makes that better? Nothing is more absurd than misplaced pride. To be king of the anthill.
“There is genuine risk for individuals in this scheme. God's ultimate triumph involves a redeemed people on a redeemed world, but whether an individual ends up in that group will be determined by his/her free choices.”
So you think God is a utilitarian.
“Now you might say there might be a possibility that everyone would choose wrong, so God would end up without a redeemed people. But given the way we're put together, the way we interact with others and the way we are influenced by others, that would not seem to be a live option.”
To be influenced by others doesn’t predict for a happy ending rather than a tragic ending.
“That's where God's prior selection of possible outcomes would come into play.”
That’s where your imaginary postulate comes into play. But there’s no more reason to believe in your imaginary postulate than believing in Monadology.
“A (comparatively) limited range of choices is preferable to no choice at all, or being compelled to make a specific choice.”
That fails to distinguish between having choices and making choices. We can make choices even if there’s only one choice to make. And we don’t know what the one choice is until we make it.
“Scripture promises THAT there will be a redeemed people on a renewed Earth at the end of time, with God dwelling among them. At least at this stage of my studies, I don't see it specifying exactly how God goes about ensuring that result.”
Try predestination.
"So on your view, freewill doesn’t create its own possibilities or opportunities. It can only play the hand it was dealt. To raise. To call. To fold."
ReplyDeleteHow could freewill create its own possibilities? There are so many possible decisions and actions which, due to my upbringing, past experience and composition would never occur to me. But I am definitely free to choose among the live options my experience has opened up to me, and the range of those options is wide indeed. Also, new experience can widen that range still further.
"How is that “certainly better” than the notion that a benevolent, omniscient God planned your life? Other than your Lilliputian vanity and egotism, what makes that better? Nothing is more absurd than misplaced pride. To be king of the anthill."
You yourself have said you don't think God is benevolent to all people. Predestination is certainly convenient for the elect. What if I'm not in that group? It doesn't matter that currently I have faith in Christ, because maybe I was predestined to have faith for a while and then fall into apostasy.
I certainly object to conceiving of human beings as pawns playing out their scripted parts in some predetermined scheme. But is that really a case of misplaced pride? I think that objection should occur naturally once we take the full Scriptural picture of human beings into account. There are passages which emphasize the smallness of human beings and God's prerogative over us, but there are also passages which emphasize our dignity and honor as divine image-bearers.
"So you think God is a utilitarian."
I'm not sure how that follows from my scenario. But isn't the Calvinist God utilitarian too, since on that view human beings, whether elect or reprobate, ultimately exist to demonstrate either God's mercy or wrath respectively?
"That’s where your imaginary postulate comes into play. But there’s no more reason to believe in your imaginary postulate than believing in Monadology."
A good reason to accept a postulate is if it makes sense of wide range of experience, and coheres with other well-established postulates. I'm trying to come up with a model of providence which makes sense of both God's assured ultimate triumph, and of human freedom. Arguably predestination is also such a postulate. It may possibly be inferred from certain Scriptural passages and events, but it's not explicitly espoused as such anywhere.
"That fails to distinguish between having choices and making choices. We can make choices even if there’s only one choice to make. And we don’t know what the one choice is until we make it."
I'll grant that it is coherent to say one is making a choice even if that is the only choice, and we didn't know that was the only choice until we made it, but I think that model is inadequate to what people are actually doing when they make choices in life. We do find ourselves in situations where there is only one choice, given certain non-negotiable commitments, goals, or external obstacles, but in general human beings find themselves confronted with a range of options, all of which are 'live' in the sense of actually being available (and not just seeming to be), none of which follows as a matter of necessity from what came before.
I'm still thinking this model through. I'll get back to you when I've done more detailed Scriptural and philosophical study. So far the idea that there are multiple routes to the same ultimate destination, none of which was predetermined in advance, seems to reconcile God's ultimate triumph and human freedom pretty well.
"So far the idea that there are multiple routes to the same ultimate destination, none of which was predetermined in advance, seems to reconcile God's ultimate triumph and human freedom pretty well."
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Is that not fatalism?
No, only some aspects of the future are settled. Like I said before, there will be a redeemed people on a renewed Earth with God dwelling among them at the end of time. That much is assured. But the exact composition of that group, and to some extent the course of events leading up to the Eschaton, will depend on the interplay between divine initiative and human response, just as it does throughout the Bible.
ReplyDeleteJ.D. SAID:
ReplyDelete“How could freewill create its own possibilities? There are so many possible decisions and actions which, due to my upbringing, past experience and composition would never occur to me.”
Sounds pretty deterministic. The future is contained in the past.
“But I am definitely free to choose among the live options my experience has opened up to me, and the range of those options is wide indeed. Also, new experience can widen that range still further.”
There are objective alternatives open to you, but psychologically speaking, the conscious and subconscious past factors leading up to the present will predispose which option you go for.
We can survey various options, and there’s nothing outwardly preventing us from choosing one fork over another, but in terms of how we got to this point, the past selects for the future.
“You yourself have said you don't think God is benevolent to all people. Predestination is certainly convenient for the elect. What if I'm not in that group? It doesn't matter that currently I have faith in Christ, because maybe I was predestined to have faith for a while and then fall into apostasy.”
But I’m not discussing the viewpoint of an atheist. I’m discussing the viewpoint of a professing believer. So that’s how you’d logically evaluate the character of God–at this juncture.
“I certainly object to conceiving of human beings as pawns playing out their scripted parts in some predetermined scheme. But is that really a case of misplaced pride? I think that objection should occur naturally once we take the full Scriptural picture of human beings into account. There are passages which emphasize the smallness of human beings and God's prerogative over us, but there are also passages which emphasize our dignity and honor as divine image-bearer.”
I don’t think predestination is demeaning to human beings. Humbling, but not demeaning. We are (in effect) God’s fiction. Like characters in a novel.
God “dignifies” JD by writing JD’s story, writing a story to, for, and about JD–which also slides into a metanarrative of other intersecting stories about other characters.
Is it more dignified to be your own hack novelist? Writing your pulp fictional life?
Cont. “I'm not sure how that follows from my scenario. But isn't the Calvinist God utilitarian too, since on that view human beings, whether elect or reprobate, ultimately exist to demonstrate either God's mercy or wrath respectively?”
ReplyDeleteAre you admitting parallels between your position and Calvinism?
“A good reason to accept a postulate is if it makes sense of wide range of experience, and coheres with other well-established postulates. I'm trying to come up with a model of providence which makes sense of both God's assured ultimate triumph, and of human freedom.”
When you refer to human freedom, what phenomena are you alluding to? And why do you think predestination is at variance with the phenomenology of human freedom? All we directly perceive are effects, not causes.
“Arguably predestination is also such a postulate. It may possibly be inferred from certain Scriptural passages and events, but it's not explicitly espoused as such anywhere.”
I don’t know who you’ve studied on the subject.
“…in general human beings find themselves confronted with a range of options, all of which are 'live' in the sense of actually being available (and not just seeming to be), none of which follows as a matter of necessity from what came before.”
Which assumes you’re conscious of all the past factors that feed into your choice.
“So far the idea that there are multiple routes to the same ultimate destination, none of which was predetermined in advance, seems to reconcile God's ultimate triumph and human freedom pretty well.”
That’s a classic definition of fatalism. Every alternate route circles back to the same destination. Turn left. Turn right. Go straight. Reverse course. But you end up in the very same place.