Sunday, February 7, 2010
Why Does God Allow Bad Things to Happen, #2209
I am in a hotel in San Jose. Tomorrow I will be interviewed for a long time for the documentary on the Fed. The strategy is that if you keep a camera on me for 4 hours, surely I'll say something profound.
This post is not going to be bulletproof by any stretch, but I went through a stream of consciousness yesterday and I thought some of you might appreciate hearing my views on some big issues in a slightly different way.
I believe Dr. Pangloss was almost right. This isn't the best of all possible worlds, but it's the best of all possible worlds that God has the power to design. He made it as good as it could possibly be, subject to humans having free will. And He decided (and I agree with Him) that the world is better with free will than without.
So when someone says something like, "How could a benevolent God have allowed the Holocaust?!" I think that's a rather ill-posed question. I would say, "OK, what would you have changed? You have absolutely no idea what the ramifications would be, if (say) Hitler hadn't been born, or if he had been struck by lightning, etc. You are simply assuming that God was sloppy and could have retained all the good things about the universe, but without the regrettable necessity of allowing the Holocaust to unfold as it did. Do you really think you are more upset about innocent people being killed--people whom you probably only know about as a statistic in history book--than does their Creator and Father, who actually watched them die?"
My understanding is that God designed the very fabric of the universe--from picking the charge on an electron and deciding how much mass/energy to create at the time of the Big Bang (assuming the cosmologists are right)--knowing beforehand what choices people would make. So ultimately He makes the best of the Holocaust and other awful events, but yes there is a reason (actually an infinity of reasons) that they had to happen. I believe that people who want to spend eternity with God will do so, and when they die they will understand why He made the choices He did. We will then say, "Ohhhhhh, thank you" when we see what would have happened had He allowed history to unfold any other way.
Now my views raise two objections or concerns, which I'll briefly address:
OBJECTION 1: So it doesn't help anything if we choose not to sin?
No, this is wrong. You do make the world a worse place when you sin. Conversely, when you obey God's laws you make the world a better place. Remember, God has made the world as good as it can possibly be, given our free choices. If you are familiar with game theory, it's as if God moves first, designing the physical universe and all its attributes, and deciding how many souls there will be etc. Then He can look ahead and see all the choices people will make in that particular timeline. He does this for all possible universes, and then actually creates the universe that is best. So one of the constraints He faces is our free choices in the "subgames" after He has moved and designed the universe and its laws of transformation. Every time you sin, you close off avenues to God, forcing the universe into an even less optimal path. When you obey God's will, you give Him more to work with.
The choices you make really are free; you really do have free will. God doesn't cheat. He won't force you to love Him or obey Him; He doesn't want slaves or dupes, unlike Satan (and unlike some religious leaders). But He does know beforehand what you will do in every possible circumstance, because God is outside time. Every moment of history in our universe's timeline is the manifestation of one unified decision, a single action (in the Misesian sense) that God performs to create the best of all possible worlds.
OBJECTION 2: Why does God allow sin to be so painful?
This one used to trip me up for a long time. Sure, we understand that unless people have the option of sinning, we really can't have free will. But why couldn't the world work such that the worst you could do would be to cause someone momentary pain? And then a forcefield kicks in, shielding the person from any serious damage?
Well, given how complex and interrelated everything in the universe is--how scientists can tell you that life wouldn't work (at least as we know it) if some of the physical constants were changed by 0.01% etc.--I think it's a bit sophomoric to say, "Let's keep all the good stuff, like love and poetry and the first season of 24--but change all the stuff we don't like." The point is, that is impossible. You can't just tweak things a little bit. The present state of the world is directly tied to the initial configuration, whether or not you believe in physical determinism.
The other thing is that we humans have naturally adjusted our expectations to think that "the worst thing in the world" is, well, pretty awful. But we can certainly imagine universes in which being waterboarded would be child's play. For example, remember Jabba's sentence to Luke and Han? I don't remember the exact wording, but he said they would be slowly digested in the belly of a monster for hundreds (thousands?) of years. Now that sounds pretty bad! We can imagine cynics in the Star Wars universe saying, "If George Lucas loved us, why would he allow such awful possibilities?" And then a Lucastian would say, "But look at how cool our world is! We have Jedi knights and get to blow up Imperial walkers."
I'm trying to be humorous but I'm dead serious. If the worst thing in the world were a wet willy, people would say things like, "I can't believe God allows such horrors! I just saw on the news that in Uganda, soldiers held a man down, got in line, and gave him 20 wet willies in a row--in both ears at once!"
This post is not going to be bulletproof by any stretch, but I went through a stream of consciousness yesterday and I thought some of you might appreciate hearing my views on some big issues in a slightly different way.
I believe Dr. Pangloss was almost right. This isn't the best of all possible worlds, but it's the best of all possible worlds that God has the power to design. He made it as good as it could possibly be, subject to humans having free will. And He decided (and I agree with Him) that the world is better with free will than without.
So when someone says something like, "How could a benevolent God have allowed the Holocaust?!" I think that's a rather ill-posed question. I would say, "OK, what would you have changed? You have absolutely no idea what the ramifications would be, if (say) Hitler hadn't been born, or if he had been struck by lightning, etc. You are simply assuming that God was sloppy and could have retained all the good things about the universe, but without the regrettable necessity of allowing the Holocaust to unfold as it did. Do you really think you are more upset about innocent people being killed--people whom you probably only know about as a statistic in history book--than does their Creator and Father, who actually watched them die?"
My understanding is that God designed the very fabric of the universe--from picking the charge on an electron and deciding how much mass/energy to create at the time of the Big Bang (assuming the cosmologists are right)--knowing beforehand what choices people would make. So ultimately He makes the best of the Holocaust and other awful events, but yes there is a reason (actually an infinity of reasons) that they had to happen. I believe that people who want to spend eternity with God will do so, and when they die they will understand why He made the choices He did. We will then say, "Ohhhhhh, thank you" when we see what would have happened had He allowed history to unfold any other way.
Now my views raise two objections or concerns, which I'll briefly address:
OBJECTION 1: So it doesn't help anything if we choose not to sin?
No, this is wrong. You do make the world a worse place when you sin. Conversely, when you obey God's laws you make the world a better place. Remember, God has made the world as good as it can possibly be, given our free choices. If you are familiar with game theory, it's as if God moves first, designing the physical universe and all its attributes, and deciding how many souls there will be etc. Then He can look ahead and see all the choices people will make in that particular timeline. He does this for all possible universes, and then actually creates the universe that is best. So one of the constraints He faces is our free choices in the "subgames" after He has moved and designed the universe and its laws of transformation. Every time you sin, you close off avenues to God, forcing the universe into an even less optimal path. When you obey God's will, you give Him more to work with.
The choices you make really are free; you really do have free will. God doesn't cheat. He won't force you to love Him or obey Him; He doesn't want slaves or dupes, unlike Satan (and unlike some religious leaders). But He does know beforehand what you will do in every possible circumstance, because God is outside time. Every moment of history in our universe's timeline is the manifestation of one unified decision, a single action (in the Misesian sense) that God performs to create the best of all possible worlds.
OBJECTION 2: Why does God allow sin to be so painful?
This one used to trip me up for a long time. Sure, we understand that unless people have the option of sinning, we really can't have free will. But why couldn't the world work such that the worst you could do would be to cause someone momentary pain? And then a forcefield kicks in, shielding the person from any serious damage?
Well, given how complex and interrelated everything in the universe is--how scientists can tell you that life wouldn't work (at least as we know it) if some of the physical constants were changed by 0.01% etc.--I think it's a bit sophomoric to say, "Let's keep all the good stuff, like love and poetry and the first season of 24--but change all the stuff we don't like." The point is, that is impossible. You can't just tweak things a little bit. The present state of the world is directly tied to the initial configuration, whether or not you believe in physical determinism.
The other thing is that we humans have naturally adjusted our expectations to think that "the worst thing in the world" is, well, pretty awful. But we can certainly imagine universes in which being waterboarded would be child's play. For example, remember Jabba's sentence to Luke and Han? I don't remember the exact wording, but he said they would be slowly digested in the belly of a monster for hundreds (thousands?) of years. Now that sounds pretty bad! We can imagine cynics in the Star Wars universe saying, "If George Lucas loved us, why would he allow such awful possibilities?" And then a Lucastian would say, "But look at how cool our world is! We have Jedi knights and get to blow up Imperial walkers."
I'm trying to be humorous but I'm dead serious. If the worst thing in the world were a wet willy, people would say things like, "I can't believe God allows such horrors! I just saw on the news that in Uganda, soldiers held a man down, got in line, and gave him 20 wet willies in a row--in both ears at once!"
Comments:
Interesting viewpoint, but I have a different way of looking at it.
God created the world and man/woman, and gave us everything we would ever need in a beautiful environment. We were free to choose any path and we chose the path of sin, casuing God to banish us from the Garden of Eden and cast out into the world, which is ruled by Satan.
We are living in his world and on his terms. Satan is the ruler of this world at the present time and we are constantly bombarded by death, disease, hate, murder, and other sins as he can to turn away from God.
The wages of sin are death and that is all we deserve. We shouldn't ask, "Why did God let this happen to me?" but rather "thanks for the stuff I do have and Praise the Lord that someday I will be rid of this world and its temptations and will live in Heaven with God and all other believers!"
God created the world and man/woman, and gave us everything we would ever need in a beautiful environment. We were free to choose any path and we chose the path of sin, casuing God to banish us from the Garden of Eden and cast out into the world, which is ruled by Satan.
We are living in his world and on his terms. Satan is the ruler of this world at the present time and we are constantly bombarded by death, disease, hate, murder, and other sins as he can to turn away from God.
The wages of sin are death and that is all we deserve. We shouldn't ask, "Why did God let this happen to me?" but rather "thanks for the stuff I do have and Praise the Lord that someday I will be rid of this world and its temptations and will live in Heaven with God and all other believers!"
# posted by 
: February 8, 2010 at 8:18 AM
: February 8, 2010 at 8:18 AM
Bob... I appreciate your post here. It is nice to have an academic be so open with his faith (and still be taken seriously).
I apprecaite your view too, but I wonder if it coincides with the Scripture. Consider Romans 9
"What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."
God used Pharaoh, Esau, etc. for His purposes. I think understanding is VITAL to defending the Christian faith. Watch any good debate with Richard Dawkins. Where people get "stuck" by Dawkins is trying to figure how to fit God in with bad events. Where I see that they lose with a free will argument is that either God is not God (becasue He can't protect us from evil [and by the way, I don't think that's what your trying to say]) OR God is not very nice or not just because He let "innocent" people die.
I think--even if it is hard--to accept that God is totally soveriegn. He controls all--even the bad stuff. I may not understand why; I may not like it, but knowing that 'all things work together for the good of those who love Him and keep His commandments' is comforting. Indeed, I somewhat think that my fate being in His hands--as opposed to mine--is rather comforting, albeit sometimes scary because in my mind, I could make things work out.
In short, I think that a sovereign God is most consistent with Scripture, and it is really the only way to defend the Christian faith. Peope may see God as cruel, but "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" (Rom 9:21).
Thanks for your fantastic blog. It is consistently entertaining, educational, and intellectually stimulating.
I apprecaite your view too, but I wonder if it coincides with the Scripture. Consider Romans 9
"What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."
God used Pharaoh, Esau, etc. for His purposes. I think understanding is VITAL to defending the Christian faith. Watch any good debate with Richard Dawkins. Where people get "stuck" by Dawkins is trying to figure how to fit God in with bad events. Where I see that they lose with a free will argument is that either God is not God (becasue He can't protect us from evil [and by the way, I don't think that's what your trying to say]) OR God is not very nice or not just because He let "innocent" people die.
I think--even if it is hard--to accept that God is totally soveriegn. He controls all--even the bad stuff. I may not understand why; I may not like it, but knowing that 'all things work together for the good of those who love Him and keep His commandments' is comforting. Indeed, I somewhat think that my fate being in His hands--as opposed to mine--is rather comforting, albeit sometimes scary because in my mind, I could make things work out.
In short, I think that a sovereign God is most consistent with Scripture, and it is really the only way to defend the Christian faith. Peope may see God as cruel, but "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" (Rom 9:21).
Thanks for your fantastic blog. It is consistently entertaining, educational, and intellectually stimulating.
MK, I agree that God is sovereign. Every single moment in the history of the universe is a direct reflection of God's will. If you ask why any particular event happened, I think it is perfectly correct to say, "Because God wanted it to happen."
But I also believe He gave us free will. So my whole challenge is to try to reconcile this apparent contradiction.
But I also believe He gave us free will. So my whole challenge is to try to reconcile this apparent contradiction.
"...the Holocaust and other awful events, but yes there is a reason (actually an infinity of reasons) that they had to happen"
Bob, at least you recognize the contradiction between what you say here and the fact of free will. I don't see how you can have it both ways.
Bob, at least you recognize the contradiction between what you say here and the fact of free will. I don't see how you can have it both ways.
What do you mean "creates the universe that is best?" What does God's payoff function look like? What is he maximizing it with respect to? I highly doubt human utility is a huge factor, or else he could have simply created infinite worlds with infinite people and infinite resources, and still could have kept free will. Also, doesn't Mises specifically say in Human Action that God can't be analyzed through the lens of action like people can? One Robert P. Murphy, Ph. D, also noted this fact on page 15 of his study guide to the very same. "Praxeology only makes sense when applied to acting human beings. It breaks down into paradox with a being such as the Christian God. Action implies uneasiness, yet an omnipotent being would in one fell swoop achieve perfect contentment."
Do you have a response to Dr. Murphy's claim?
Do you have a response to Dr. Murphy's claim?
“Why does God allow sin to be so painful?”
I agree more with Matt on this issue. The Bible is clear that God created the earth and mankind absolutely perfect, no death, no earthquakes, no evil whatsoever. Then mankind rebelled. In response, God cursed the earth, hence natural disasters. And mankind’s nature changed from innocence to a natural tendency toward evil. As Paul wrote in Romans 1, God stepped back and let mankind have its way, hence the holocaust.
Natural disasters and human evil are the consequences of our continuing rebellion against God. They are God’s judgment on rebellion. At the same time the judgment is partial and mixed with mercy. God’s judgments are intended to persuade mankind to end the rebellion. They are painful because nothing less will work and even the pain of the worst disasters and atrocities doesn’t change the minds of most people. But they are intended to keep us from a greater judgment, the final one, which is far worse than anything we might experience on earth.
Matt, while I agree that Satan has a great deal of influence on those who continue the rebellion, he doesn’t have absolute authority. As Job indicates, he has to get permission from God for anything he attempts. Satan’s rule is just part of the general judgment.
“Action implies uneasiness, yet an omnipotent being would in one fell swoop achieve perfect contentment."
Humanity acts because of uneasiness, but not God. There are some things we can know about God because we are made like him in many ways, but some things we can never understand because our limited brains simply can’t comprehend them, like the trinity.
I agree more with Matt on this issue. The Bible is clear that God created the earth and mankind absolutely perfect, no death, no earthquakes, no evil whatsoever. Then mankind rebelled. In response, God cursed the earth, hence natural disasters. And mankind’s nature changed from innocence to a natural tendency toward evil. As Paul wrote in Romans 1, God stepped back and let mankind have its way, hence the holocaust.
Natural disasters and human evil are the consequences of our continuing rebellion against God. They are God’s judgment on rebellion. At the same time the judgment is partial and mixed with mercy. God’s judgments are intended to persuade mankind to end the rebellion. They are painful because nothing less will work and even the pain of the worst disasters and atrocities doesn’t change the minds of most people. But they are intended to keep us from a greater judgment, the final one, which is far worse than anything we might experience on earth.
Matt, while I agree that Satan has a great deal of influence on those who continue the rebellion, he doesn’t have absolute authority. As Job indicates, he has to get permission from God for anything he attempts. Satan’s rule is just part of the general judgment.
“Action implies uneasiness, yet an omnipotent being would in one fell swoop achieve perfect contentment."
Humanity acts because of uneasiness, but not God. There are some things we can know about God because we are made like him in many ways, but some things we can never understand because our limited brains simply can’t comprehend them, like the trinity.
# posted by : February 9, 2010 at 11:02 AM
: February 9, 2010 at 11:02 AM
My friend Bob,
It is a joy to watch you work out your faith here on the blog. It is encouraging that smart people believe.
May I humbly suggest however that you read more theology and speculate less wildly. You are unnecessarily treading back over ground that has been covered time and time again by some other smart philosopher-theologians. It's almost like trying to re-invent chemistry all by yourself. It would be a silly endevour. That does not suggest that we should cede our own reasoning to others, just that we become as educated as possible before spouting off.
Also give credit where it is due. Your idea expressed here is the classical Liebnizian view of the early 18th century. It is very much a minority view among classical orthodox theologians, but a few still try it now and then (ie John Piper).
As far as your view of man's free will, I commend to you the works by another Enlightenment thinker on this side of the Atlantic, Jonathan Edwards (no mean philosopher-theologian), in his classic work (The Freedom of the Will). As a classical liberal and a Protestant Christian, it is nearly a crime if you have not read it thoroughly.
It is a joy to watch you work out your faith here on the blog. It is encouraging that smart people believe.
May I humbly suggest however that you read more theology and speculate less wildly. You are unnecessarily treading back over ground that has been covered time and time again by some other smart philosopher-theologians. It's almost like trying to re-invent chemistry all by yourself. It would be a silly endevour. That does not suggest that we should cede our own reasoning to others, just that we become as educated as possible before spouting off.
Also give credit where it is due. Your idea expressed here is the classical Liebnizian view of the early 18th century. It is very much a minority view among classical orthodox theologians, but a few still try it now and then (ie John Piper).
As far as your view of man's free will, I commend to you the works by another Enlightenment thinker on this side of the Atlantic, Jonathan Edwards (no mean philosopher-theologian), in his classic work (The Freedom of the Will). As a classical liberal and a Protestant Christian, it is nearly a crime if you have not read it thoroughly.
# posted by : February 9, 2010 at 2:16 PM
: February 9, 2010 at 2:16 PM
If everything is willed by God, then there is no human free will. If there is human free will, then not everything is willed by God.
"This isn't the best of all possible worlds, but it's the best of all possible worlds that God has the power to design."
As an aside, that statement would have been considered blasphemy 500 years ago and may have gotten one burned at the stake. It makes Man God’s judge. No orthodox Reformed or Roman Catholic theologian is comfortable with a God who lacks the power to bring about perfection. It makes God unacceptably captive a finite reality. The only two things the Christian God cannot do is cease to exist, and to violate his own nature.
Sralla’s Objection #1 to the "best of all possible worlds": It is a throw away term since it can only be understood subjectively by humans. Your conception of the best of all possible worlds may not be my conception of the best of all possible worlds. Therefore, the definition of "best of all possible universes" is useful to you or me subjectively, but for God, best is by definition whatever he decrees will be.
Simple examples: 1) If someone chooses to drive his car 40mph, a hitchhiker should not draw the conclusion that the car is running as fast as it is capable of going. The driver is driving the speed he desires to drive, and if he is God, that speed is by definition the perfect speed. If the driver is one of us, the government may disagree with our choice of speeds. 2) Likewise, if one decides to build a 2000 square foot home, it does not necessarily mean that the person did not have the means to build a 4000 square foot home. It may only suggest that the smaller home met their desires. If you were God, the 2000 square foot home would be perfectly good, regardless of the judgments that the neighbors might make about his financial resources.
From the standpoint of the Supreme Being, creation is "good" simply because it exists in exactly the form that he decreed in his will prior to initiating the creative act. The present form of reality is therefore a perfect exercise of God's eternal decretive will (**not necessarily his preceptive will nor his will of disposition at any point within the span of creation). In that sense, his plan is perfect, even though we humans view the world as far from ideal. This does not mean that sin or evil is good, nor that God can be charged by human beings with sin. Indeed, orthodoxy teaches that God is Holy Holy Holy.
As an aside, that statement would have been considered blasphemy 500 years ago and may have gotten one burned at the stake. It makes Man God’s judge. No orthodox Reformed or Roman Catholic theologian is comfortable with a God who lacks the power to bring about perfection. It makes God unacceptably captive a finite reality. The only two things the Christian God cannot do is cease to exist, and to violate his own nature.
Sralla’s Objection #1 to the "best of all possible worlds": It is a throw away term since it can only be understood subjectively by humans. Your conception of the best of all possible worlds may not be my conception of the best of all possible worlds. Therefore, the definition of "best of all possible universes" is useful to you or me subjectively, but for God, best is by definition whatever he decrees will be.
Simple examples: 1) If someone chooses to drive his car 40mph, a hitchhiker should not draw the conclusion that the car is running as fast as it is capable of going. The driver is driving the speed he desires to drive, and if he is God, that speed is by definition the perfect speed. If the driver is one of us, the government may disagree with our choice of speeds. 2) Likewise, if one decides to build a 2000 square foot home, it does not necessarily mean that the person did not have the means to build a 4000 square foot home. It may only suggest that the smaller home met their desires. If you were God, the 2000 square foot home would be perfectly good, regardless of the judgments that the neighbors might make about his financial resources.
From the standpoint of the Supreme Being, creation is "good" simply because it exists in exactly the form that he decreed in his will prior to initiating the creative act. The present form of reality is therefore a perfect exercise of God's eternal decretive will (**not necessarily his preceptive will nor his will of disposition at any point within the span of creation). In that sense, his plan is perfect, even though we humans view the world as far from ideal. This does not mean that sin or evil is good, nor that God can be charged by human beings with sin. Indeed, orthodoxy teaches that God is Holy Holy Holy.
# posted by : February 9, 2010 at 10:58 PM
: February 9, 2010 at 10:58 PM
K Sralla, I am going to keep posting on this stuff. If you think I'm saying something wrong, please tell me. And if you think I need to read more (which I obviously do), please tell me the first book I should read. (I wouldn't think of telling a punk kid at LRC that he needed to read Human Action before trying to reinvent the case for liberty, I would just try to steer him in the right direction.)
Alex R., yes I answered your objection in my post. God is outside time and in one single action (from His viewpoint) eliminated His uneasiness. As a study guide writer I am trying to crystallize Mises' views.
Alex R., yes I answered your objection in my post. God is outside time and in one single action (from His viewpoint) eliminated His uneasiness. As a study guide writer I am trying to crystallize Mises' views.
"Alex R., yes I answered your objection in my post. God is outside time and in one single action (from His viewpoint) eliminated His uneasiness."
Well that just opened the contradiction/begging the question flood gates.
"As a study guide writer I am trying to crystallize Mises' views."
First one to create a Neomisean crystal without heretic residue wins the Nobel Prize!
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-0215-ferrara-ludwig_von_mises_versus_christ.htm
"Humanity acts because of uneasiness, but not God. There are some things we can know about God because we are made like him in many ways"
weasel words
"but some things we can never understand because our limited brains simply can’t comprehend them, like the trinity."
Yet these limited brains are somehow easily able to define god's will, and nature that exists in three persons equally. I guess god isn't limited to being incomprehensible, we can discuss him with coherent understanding. IT"S A MIRACLE!
BTW: Jesus told me over the phone that you're trying to slip in an ad hom. I would know; I have a personal relationship with him.
Well that just opened the contradiction/begging the question flood gates.
"As a study guide writer I am trying to crystallize Mises' views."
First one to create a Neomisean crystal without heretic residue wins the Nobel Prize!
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-0215-ferrara-ludwig_von_mises_versus_christ.htm
"Humanity acts because of uneasiness, but not God. There are some things we can know about God because we are made like him in many ways"
weasel words
"but some things we can never understand because our limited brains simply can’t comprehend them, like the trinity."
Yet these limited brains are somehow easily able to define god's will, and nature that exists in three persons equally. I guess god isn't limited to being incomprehensible, we can discuss him with coherent understanding. IT"S A MIRACLE!
BTW: Jesus told me over the phone that you're trying to slip in an ad hom. I would know; I have a personal relationship with him.
# posted by : February 10, 2010 at 6:55 AM
: February 10, 2010 at 6:55 AM
Bob,
I very much enjoy the discussion, and you are obviously thinking deeply about these matters. It was not my intention to put you down in any way. Quite to the contrary, I am just urging you to go deeper (not that I am some kind of guru, I'm not. Just a former Sunday School teacher).
A critical book to read is Jonathan Edwards (The Freedom of the Will). He wrestles with John Locke's works on the will, and goes on to deal extensively with a number or these issues discussed in this post. He is the greatest philosopher-theologian in American history period, and writes as a near contemporary to many of the continental Enlightenment philosophers. You really need to engage Edwards. It definitely opened my mind to seeing the will in a different way.
I very much enjoy the discussion, and you are obviously thinking deeply about these matters. It was not my intention to put you down in any way. Quite to the contrary, I am just urging you to go deeper (not that I am some kind of guru, I'm not. Just a former Sunday School teacher).
A critical book to read is Jonathan Edwards (The Freedom of the Will). He wrestles with John Locke's works on the will, and goes on to deal extensively with a number or these issues discussed in this post. He is the greatest philosopher-theologian in American history period, and writes as a near contemporary to many of the continental Enlightenment philosophers. You really need to engage Edwards. It definitely opened my mind to seeing the will in a different way.
# posted by : February 10, 2010 at 8:45 AM
: February 10, 2010 at 8:45 AM
Anon wrote:
BTW: Jesus told me over the phone that you're trying to slip in an ad hom. I would know; I have a personal relationship with him.
Anon, I'm genuinely curious: Do you make jokes about everyone's deeply held religious beliefs, or just evangelical Christians? I'm seriously asking you. Like, do you joke about burning bushes to orthodox Jews, etc.?
BTW: Jesus told me over the phone that you're trying to slip in an ad hom. I would know; I have a personal relationship with him.
Anon, I'm genuinely curious: Do you make jokes about everyone's deeply held religious beliefs, or just evangelical Christians? I'm seriously asking you. Like, do you joke about burning bushes to orthodox Jews, etc.?
I haven't read Edwards, but I have listened to RC Sproul talk about him quite a bit. It seems to me that Edwards persuades everyone that free will can't possibly exist. I would be more interested in reading Edwards if someone could explain why the Bible assumes that people do have a free will. From Genesis to Revelation, God, the prophets and the writers beg people to repent. Do they not know that people have no free will? I doubt that, which makes the pleas for repentance seem mean or stupid.
# posted by : February 10, 2010 at 11:22 AM
: February 10, 2010 at 11:22 AM
Fundamentalist,
I guess that's what makes you fundamentalist. The good book assumes it, you believe it, that settles it! Amen
Thanks for sharing.
I guess that's what makes you fundamentalist. The good book assumes it, you believe it, that settles it! Amen
Thanks for sharing.
# posted by : February 10, 2010 at 3:59 PM
: February 10, 2010 at 3:59 PM
Actually, I was really asking "if someone could explain why the Bible assumes that people do have a free will."
What do Calvinists say about this?
What do Calvinists say about this?
# posted by : February 11, 2010 at 1:50 PM
: February 11, 2010 at 1:50 PM
"If everything is willed by God, then there is no human free will. If there is human free will, then not everything is willed by God." -Gene
I always thought the same way. Either A, God is all powerful, omnipotent, yada yada and therefor knows all outcomes before they happen, or B, we have free will and God isn't omni-awesome.
Then I thought to myself, "Just because God is "all - powerful" does not mean that He will use that power at 100% for all of time. I do believe that God is all powerful and all knowing, but maybe he limits his power for our free will to exist.
Example: I can smash the keys on my keyboard much harder than i am now, but it isnt in my will to do so. In the same way, perhaps God has the ability to know the future, making him all knowing omni-cool, but he wills or "chooses" to restrain that knowledge, and our free will is a by-product.
I believe God is all powerful, which also means he has the power to limit some of his abilities , just as i limit my ability to smash the keys, although i can if i will it. Sure the Keys (people) could say, "We either have smooth surfaces (free will), or Michael (God) is powerful enough to smash us (powerful enough to will everything)."
Can't it be that keys (our) having smooth surfaces (free will) is a result of God's will?
I always thought the same way. Either A, God is all powerful, omnipotent, yada yada and therefor knows all outcomes before they happen, or B, we have free will and God isn't omni-awesome.
Then I thought to myself, "Just because God is "all - powerful" does not mean that He will use that power at 100% for all of time. I do believe that God is all powerful and all knowing, but maybe he limits his power for our free will to exist.
Example: I can smash the keys on my keyboard much harder than i am now, but it isnt in my will to do so. In the same way, perhaps God has the ability to know the future, making him all knowing omni-cool, but he wills or "chooses" to restrain that knowledge, and our free will is a by-product.
I believe God is all powerful, which also means he has the power to limit some of his abilities , just as i limit my ability to smash the keys, although i can if i will it. Sure the Keys (people) could say, "We either have smooth surfaces (free will), or Michael (God) is powerful enough to smash us (powerful enough to will everything)."
Can't it be that keys (our) having smooth surfaces (free will) is a result of God's will?
Long discussion Fundy. Bottomline, you assume the Bible assumes free will as you understand it.
Homework:
Paul answers your question very clearly. Please try to clear your pre-concieved notions, then carefully read Romans 8,9, and 10 in that order. Paul even anticipates your objections, and answers them one at a time. Finally, he reveals why the preacher should preach. The proclamation of the Gospel is an instrumental means whereby the word of God comes in spoken or written form, and those with "sprititual ears", hear and believe. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
Next, go back and read both of Jesus's famous parables of the sower and parable of the wheat and tares (back to back in that order).
Soli deo gloria.
Homework:
Paul answers your question very clearly. Please try to clear your pre-concieved notions, then carefully read Romans 8,9, and 10 in that order. Paul even anticipates your objections, and answers them one at a time. Finally, he reveals why the preacher should preach. The proclamation of the Gospel is an instrumental means whereby the word of God comes in spoken or written form, and those with "sprititual ears", hear and believe. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
Next, go back and read both of Jesus's famous parables of the sower and parable of the wheat and tares (back to back in that order).
Soli deo gloria.
# posted by : February 11, 2010 at 2:49 PM
: February 11, 2010 at 2:49 PM
"I believe God is all powerful, which also means he has the power to limit some of his abilities , just as i limit my ability to smash the keys, although i can if i will it."
My dear boy! Once God limits his power, he is no longer all powerful. Since you assert he has done this, you do not believe that God is all powerful.
What you mean to say is that God limits his actions to those which he decrees he will do. Remember that God by definition cannot not exist. A corollary to this is that God cannot not be God. I AM THAT I AM. Never, I AM NOT THAT I AM NOT.
My dear boy! Once God limits his power, he is no longer all powerful. Since you assert he has done this, you do not believe that God is all powerful.
What you mean to say is that God limits his actions to those which he decrees he will do. Remember that God by definition cannot not exist. A corollary to this is that God cannot not be God. I AM THAT I AM. Never, I AM NOT THAT I AM NOT.
# posted by : February 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM
: February 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM
"Anon, I'm genuinely curious: Do you make jokes about everyone's deeply held religious beliefs, or just evangelical Christians? I'm seriously asking you. Like, do you joke about burning bushes to orthodox Jews, etc.?"
Only if they're very attractive. I also have to collect enough scented candles for Sensei Callahan, before I'm ready to wisecrack.
Only if they're very attractive. I also have to collect enough scented candles for Sensei Callahan, before I'm ready to wisecrack.
# posted by : February 11, 2010 at 7:44 PM
: February 11, 2010 at 7:44 PM
Surely God has free will. Yet no one claims that there is any probability that he will choose to do evil. Evil is understood to be inconsistent with his character.
But why should man be any different? Perhaps God's gift of free will to man entails the capacity to do evil; but why must we have any inclination to do it? And if we must have such inclination, how can we ever be cured of evil, so long as we retain free will?
But why should man be any different? Perhaps God's gift of free will to man entails the capacity to do evil; but why must we have any inclination to do it? And if we must have such inclination, how can we ever be cured of evil, so long as we retain free will?
"Please try to clear your pre-concieved notions, then carefully read Romans 8,9, and 10 in that order."
I have read them many times, in that order and from many different perspectives over the past 50 years and still don't get what Calvinists get. And they don't answer my question.
"The proclamation of the Gospel is an instrumental means whereby the word of God comes in spoken or written form..."
That does not address the issue I raised. Preachers in the Bible do not simply preach the word of God. They always and everywhere demand, beg, plead, cry for the people to repent. Why would they do that knowing that knowing that it's impossible for any to repent but those chosen? The idea makes the entire book of Jeremiah utter nonsense. If the prophets knew that the chosen would repent because of their preaching and no others could possibly do so, then the character of their preaching should have changed dramatically. Instead of pleading, they would merely proclaim the word and wait for the chosen ones to respond.
"Once God limits his power, he is no longer all powerful."
That doesn't make any sense. When God refrains from judging sinners immediately out of mercy, he doesn't surrender power. The definition of meekness, an attribute of God, is power with restraint. God has the power to destroy every person on earth for their rebellion, as he once did. But he has chosen to use restraint since then. That doesn't dimimish his power to act any time he chooses to.
In a similar way, Jesus's humanity "cloaked" his divinity. That doesn't mean he was any less divine.
Phillip is right. God has chosen to refrain from using his power in a limited way in order to allow humanity a measure of free will.
I have read them many times, in that order and from many different perspectives over the past 50 years and still don't get what Calvinists get. And they don't answer my question.
"The proclamation of the Gospel is an instrumental means whereby the word of God comes in spoken or written form..."
That does not address the issue I raised. Preachers in the Bible do not simply preach the word of God. They always and everywhere demand, beg, plead, cry for the people to repent. Why would they do that knowing that knowing that it's impossible for any to repent but those chosen? The idea makes the entire book of Jeremiah utter nonsense. If the prophets knew that the chosen would repent because of their preaching and no others could possibly do so, then the character of their preaching should have changed dramatically. Instead of pleading, they would merely proclaim the word and wait for the chosen ones to respond.
"Once God limits his power, he is no longer all powerful."
That doesn't make any sense. When God refrains from judging sinners immediately out of mercy, he doesn't surrender power. The definition of meekness, an attribute of God, is power with restraint. God has the power to destroy every person on earth for their rebellion, as he once did. But he has chosen to use restraint since then. That doesn't dimimish his power to act any time he chooses to.
In a similar way, Jesus's humanity "cloaked" his divinity. That doesn't mean he was any less divine.
Phillip is right. God has chosen to refrain from using his power in a limited way in order to allow humanity a measure of free will.
# posted by : February 12, 2010 at 10:39 AM
: February 12, 2010 at 10:39 AM
Why would they do that knowing that it's impossible for any to repent but those chosen?
Why not ask Jonathan Edwards? He is the guy who implored and chided his congregatoin to repent with his famous sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." He labors through an entire book going through a biblical theology that explains your questions.
Why not ask Jonathan Edwards? He is the guy who implored and chided his congregatoin to repent with his famous sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." He labors through an entire book going through a biblical theology that explains your questions.
# posted by : February 12, 2010 at 5:04 PM
: February 12, 2010 at 5:04 PM
"God has chosen to refrain from using his power in a limited way in order to allow humanity a measure of free will."
A *measure* of free will? So you belive in limited free will? Is that kind of like limited government?
Also, I must not be following what question you are interested in. As I understand it, you are baffled as to why the prophets would implore their audience to repent if they already know that the elect will repent and the others will not. Consider this example.
If there was a burning building, and you knew that trapped in that building were child molestors, rapists, and saints, but you did not know which was which, would you try with all your might to pull everyone to saftey, or try to guess who was who? Now if God already told you that his elect in the room would all survive, but the evil would perish, would you then only give a half-hearted effort?
A *measure* of free will? So you belive in limited free will? Is that kind of like limited government?
Also, I must not be following what question you are interested in. As I understand it, you are baffled as to why the prophets would implore their audience to repent if they already know that the elect will repent and the others will not. Consider this example.
If there was a burning building, and you knew that trapped in that building were child molestors, rapists, and saints, but you did not know which was which, would you try with all your might to pull everyone to saftey, or try to guess who was who? Now if God already told you that his elect in the room would all survive, but the evil would perish, would you then only give a half-hearted effort?
# posted by : February 12, 2010 at 5:28 PM
: February 12, 2010 at 5:28 PM
"Now if God already told you that his elect in the room would all survive, but the evil would perish, would you then only give a half-hearted effort?"
Well, K Sralla, if you had even a scintilla of rationality about you, and you knew that God had so foreordained things, you would not give a "half-hearted effort", you would give NO EFFORT AT ALL -- because your effort would make no difference and is worthless.
The fact that kooky heretics like Edwards tried to hold mutually contradictory ideas in their head at the same time does not really impress the rational very much.
Well, K Sralla, if you had even a scintilla of rationality about you, and you knew that God had so foreordained things, you would not give a "half-hearted effort", you would give NO EFFORT AT ALL -- because your effort would make no difference and is worthless.
The fact that kooky heretics like Edwards tried to hold mutually contradictory ideas in their head at the same time does not really impress the rational very much.
Gene, thanks for your thoughtful comments.
However, I am dissapointed you will not have the high honor of saving anyone from the building. Somebody else gets to carry the sweet little baby to saftey.
Please be aware that if you don't choose to run in, then you will learn that God ordained some other means, and still holds you liable for not going in. That may be anathema to you, but that is how quite a few otherwise rational folks interpret the gospel.
Kooky heretic? Does the Harvard School of Theology usually maintain a research center to study the works of most irrational kooky heretics 300 years after their death? Also, as I chided you before, you also seem ignorant of Aquinas and his views of the same (not meaning to be too provocative). Have you checked yet? Until you do, I will assume you tag Aquinas with the same.
Next, you say:you would not give a "half-hearted effort", you would give NO EFFORT AT ALL -- because your effort would make no difference and is worthless
But my dear Gene, my effort would indeed make a difference, it would actually be the instrumental cause that saves those people from the building. And, I think I would be even more apt to run in, especially if God already assured me of success. He says" "go in! You will be successfull."
Do you not buy primary and secondary causes?
However, I am dissapointed you will not have the high honor of saving anyone from the building. Somebody else gets to carry the sweet little baby to saftey.
Please be aware that if you don't choose to run in, then you will learn that God ordained some other means, and still holds you liable for not going in. That may be anathema to you, but that is how quite a few otherwise rational folks interpret the gospel.
Kooky heretic? Does the Harvard School of Theology usually maintain a research center to study the works of most irrational kooky heretics 300 years after their death? Also, as I chided you before, you also seem ignorant of Aquinas and his views of the same (not meaning to be too provocative). Have you checked yet? Until you do, I will assume you tag Aquinas with the same.
Next, you say:you would not give a "half-hearted effort", you would give NO EFFORT AT ALL -- because your effort would make no difference and is worthless
But my dear Gene, my effort would indeed make a difference, it would actually be the instrumental cause that saves those people from the building. And, I think I would be even more apt to run in, especially if God already assured me of success. He says" "go in! You will be successfull."
Do you not buy primary and secondary causes?
# posted by : February 13, 2010 at 10:28 AM
: February 13, 2010 at 10:28 AM
K Sralla, there is no "honor" involved in saving them, since they were already saved. There is no way for God to hold me liable for saving anyone or not, since He already determined whether or not I will be saved. Your effort in saving them is not the instrumental cause of anything -- for x to be a cause of y is to say that without x, y would not have occurred -- but there having been saved was inevitable.
Gene, thanks again for the enlightening discussion.
"There is no way for God to hold me liable for saving anyone or not, since He already determined whether or not I will be saved"
You are correct, but you just beat down a helpless straw man. Congratulations! No Reformed theologian would disagree. What is asserted however, is that God holds sinners liable for sin (even sins of the heart). If one holds an attitude which is rebellious to God's revealed will, that is sin, and without the righteousness of Christ imputed to one's account, one will receive justice. (I don't expect a Roman Catholic to agree with the doctrine of imputation) Jesus said go proclaim, baptize, and teach disciples. Resistance to this command is a liability, even in view of God's sovereign election of particular sinners to salvation, and his determination of the means of grace (instrumental cause) used to accomplish his will.
I think what you are really wrestling with is the question Paul addresses.
"You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God. Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?" -Saint Paul
Next.
"Your effort in saving them is not the instrumental cause of anything -- for x to be a cause of y is to say that without x, y would not have occurred"
You are either being willfully ignorant of primary and secondary causation, or you need some extra tutoring from your esteemed philosophical colleagues at NYU.
Example: In global warming, is it the CO2 or the increased water vapor which causes the warming? Or rather is it caused by you choosing to drive your gas guzzling car to the office?
"There is no way for God to hold me liable for saving anyone or not, since He already determined whether or not I will be saved"
You are correct, but you just beat down a helpless straw man. Congratulations! No Reformed theologian would disagree. What is asserted however, is that God holds sinners liable for sin (even sins of the heart). If one holds an attitude which is rebellious to God's revealed will, that is sin, and without the righteousness of Christ imputed to one's account, one will receive justice. (I don't expect a Roman Catholic to agree with the doctrine of imputation) Jesus said go proclaim, baptize, and teach disciples. Resistance to this command is a liability, even in view of God's sovereign election of particular sinners to salvation, and his determination of the means of grace (instrumental cause) used to accomplish his will.
I think what you are really wrestling with is the question Paul addresses.
"You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God. Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?" -Saint Paul
Next.
"Your effort in saving them is not the instrumental cause of anything -- for x to be a cause of y is to say that without x, y would not have occurred"
You are either being willfully ignorant of primary and secondary causation, or you need some extra tutoring from your esteemed philosophical colleagues at NYU.
Example: In global warming, is it the CO2 or the increased water vapor which causes the warming? Or rather is it caused by you choosing to drive your gas guzzling car to the office?
# posted by : February 18, 2010 at 8:43 PM
: February 18, 2010 at 8:43 PM
Thanks Gene for the enlightening discussion.
"There is no way for God to hold me liable for saving anyone or not, since He already determined whether or not I will be saved"
You are correct, but you just beat down a helpless straw man. Congratulations! No Reformed theologian would disagree. What is asserted however, is that God holds sinners liable for sin (even sins of the heart). If one holds an attitude which is rebellious to God's revealed will, that is sin, and without the righteousness of Christ imputed to one's account, one will receive justice. (I don't expect a Roman Catholic to agree with this) Jesus said go proclaim, baptize, and teach disciples. Resistance to this command is a liability, even in view of God's sovereign election of particular sinners to salvation, and his determination of the means of grace (instrumental cause) he uses to accomplish his will.
I think what you are really wrestling with is the question Paul addresses.
"You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God. Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?" -Saint Paul
Next.
"Your effort in saving them is not the instrumental cause of anything -- for x to be a cause of y is to say that without x, y would not have occurred"
You are either being willfully ignorant of primary and secondary causation, or you need some extra tutoring from your esteemed philosophical colleagues at NYU.
Example: In global warming, is it the CO2 or the increased water vapor which causes the warming? Or rather is it caused by you choosing to drive your gas guzzling car to the office?
Post a Comment
"There is no way for God to hold me liable for saving anyone or not, since He already determined whether or not I will be saved"
You are correct, but you just beat down a helpless straw man. Congratulations! No Reformed theologian would disagree. What is asserted however, is that God holds sinners liable for sin (even sins of the heart). If one holds an attitude which is rebellious to God's revealed will, that is sin, and without the righteousness of Christ imputed to one's account, one will receive justice. (I don't expect a Roman Catholic to agree with this) Jesus said go proclaim, baptize, and teach disciples. Resistance to this command is a liability, even in view of God's sovereign election of particular sinners to salvation, and his determination of the means of grace (instrumental cause) he uses to accomplish his will.
I think what you are really wrestling with is the question Paul addresses.
"You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God. Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?" -Saint Paul
Next.
"Your effort in saving them is not the instrumental cause of anything -- for x to be a cause of y is to say that without x, y would not have occurred"
You are either being willfully ignorant of primary and secondary causation, or you need some extra tutoring from your esteemed philosophical colleagues at NYU.
Example: In global warming, is it the CO2 or the increased water vapor which causes the warming? Or rather is it caused by you choosing to drive your gas guzzling car to the office?
# posted by : February 18, 2010 at 8:46 PM
: February 18, 2010 at 8:46 PM Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]