Featured Acts 26

No, just as we can have two levels of desire, so can God.

If you have a delicious bowl of ice cream in front of you (or whatever it is that is high in calories that you may enjoy) and a treadmill machine (which you enjoy using on occasion), you may make a choice between the two. Although you have a desire for both, you decide to work out on the treadmill because it is ultimately healthier for you. Even all the while working out on the treadmill, your taste buds desire the ice cream, but your specific desire to glorify yourself ultimately in the pain of the exercise machine is greater than your general desire for tasty things.

Now, do not read too much into my illustration. It is just an illustration of my point about greater and lesser desires and the details do not have analogies with theology. The point is, God can have a general desire based on His moral prescription that every individual person repent. However, His greater desire is to glorify Himself by demonstrating both his grace and mercy and His justice and wrath.

If you would believe that God's greatest desire is for everyone to be saved, then He would see to it that this happens. Why would He not give the same kind of direct revelation from heaven to King Agrippa as He did to Paul? You would have to argue that God's desire to "respect human free will" is greater than His desire for the salvation of every individual person.

 

In the judicial, forensic sense of accountability, wouldn't even your position make God "complicit" in any evil that He has the power to stop? If you were a witness during a murder trial, and you admitted that you had seen the act taking place, you had a gun in your hand, you were standing behind the assailant's back unknown to him, and you had no reason to believe you could not have saved the victim's life, would you not become legally complicit in the act of the murder? If you try to avoid the problem of evil while still putting God to man's judicial standards, then you have to strip God of ALL that would properly belong to "deity." He cannot be omnipresent and omnipotent. No matter how you slice it, if God were put on trial in a human court of law, He would be found guilty of evil or complicit in it.

Whether the excuse is "primary causes," "secondary causes," or even "respect of free will" we have to realize that God cannot be morally responsible for evil human acts the way His creatures would rightly be found responsible in any court of law. The only way around the problem of evil in Christian theism is to understand that God cannot be made morally accountable to how His creature understand it (and must practice it). God as Creator is not subject to a transcendent moral standard. The standard itself must come from God.

 

And the rewrite of scripture continues unabated. Paul says he was obedient to the vision, but what that really means is the opposite, Paul was compelled to willingly be obedient to the vision. No scripture is save from this eisegesis, where verse after verse is turned on its head.

Whatever happen to scripture alone?

 

Next, we get the Calvinist view that God is guilty of evil, but that is ok for we are not allowed to judge God. Black is not White, Sir, no matter how many times it is asserted.

(1) God causes calamity, and those adversely affected see the calamity as evil. But from God's perspective, the calamity fulfills His divine purpose, and therefore is not adverse to God and therefore, in God's eyes, is not evil. In other words, there is no moral issue with God's actions which are adverse to men.

(2) God allows His creation, mankind, to act autonomously. They choose to think and act in godly ways and ungodly ways. Lets take the case of a witness to an evil act. God could prevent every evil or ungodly act but then mankind would only be free to choose godly thoughts and acts. Robots! So, in order to fulfill the purpose of creation, i.e. mankind to bring glory to God, He must allow mankind to choose.

Now the Calvinist will say, Robots fulfill God's purpose, some only able to reject God's love and others only able to accept God's love.

In summary, God is not subject to something outside of God, but He keeps His promises and gives us a choice of life or death. Thus, to fulfill His purpose of creation, He allows evil flowing from the choices of mankind. And again, because this allowance fulfills His divine purpose, the allowance is not evil in God's eyes.

 

This is the debate fallacy called "you too" where one avoids dealing with the argument presented against their own system by pointing out similar, yet different, problems with their opponents system. There is a significant difference in one 'not preventing' and 'causing' moral evil, you can't equate the too. Plus, the same rationals you give for your view that God preordains/determines moral evil are the same rationales we give for God merely permitting it, so which is really worse? More importantly, which is more consistent with the whole of biblical revelation? Keeping in mind that God is revealed as not even tempting men to evil...

So to sum up your argument:

Since our view of divine justice is also inconsistent with the human justice system (i.e. God is culpable for permitting evil that he had the power to stop), we should go ahead and accept any view of divine justice that is inconsistent with the human justice system and conclude that God not only permits but actively causes (through secondary means etc) even moral evil. Is that right?

 

Spot on!

One of the constants in the world of propaganda is called inoculation, where an opponent is charged with whatever the propagandist is actually guilty of doing. Thus the God centered view i.e. accepting God at His word, is rejected, but then those who accept God' word, are charged with being man-centered.

We disagree on several Arminian points, but hopefully we agree that when the straightforward reading of the text makes sense, we should not seek to overturn it to make it fit with man-made doctrine.

Irresistible Grace is shown to be false doctrine in scripture after scripture, including Acts 26:19.

 

I like this illustration. It is a good analogy to explain contra-causal freedom. The agent chooses to act from among his desires...and in doing so is the one who decides what his 'greatest desire' actually is. This makes much more sense than the desire dictating the agents act, as if the agent is nothing more than an instinctive animal responding to preordered stimuli.

Couldn't it be that God's desire that every individual choose to repent is itself a demonstration of his love for them all and thus a revelation of his glory? Could it be that his punishment of those who "freely" chose to reject him despite His gracious provisions and unconditional love of them is a demonstration of his wrath and glory? Why must his desires be at odds with each other to accomplish his glory? In my view they aren't at odds.

You say that as if God's acts are determined by his desire, but who, pray tell is the one who determined God's desires? Is there some greater power who determined which of God's desires was the greatest? Wouldn't that power be God?

Because God determined to call Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles to ensure his purpose in electing Israel stood. "You've seen and believe, but blessed are they who don't see and still believe." God is pleased by faith. That is HIS determination.

Again, this statement seems to presume God is determined by his desires rather than God being the determiner. The agent makes his determinations, not his desires. God determined to allow men to make free morally accountable choices.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

I would say that the non-cal position also has two desires of God, only one of which will be fulfilled: (1) God desires all men to repent and be saved. [which cals would agree with] ...and (2) God desires that men have the completely free determining choice of whether or not to come to him. [which cals would disagree with].

The point is, God desires SOMETHING more than he desires all to be saved. For Cals, it is his sovereign choice and glory in judgement; For non-cals it is his desire that SOME men chose him freely.

 

Seriously? I mean really...Seriously? That's where you're going?

I'm curious as to WHY you think God throws folks in the lake of fire. Is there some other course of action God could have taken that would brink him more glory? If so, why is there a hell at all?

God sending people to hell to glorify himself isn't even a Cal/non-cal issue.

 

I agree, otherwise we'd be universalists, but my point is that God is the one who determined for men to have free will, not man, and it wasn't some higher power that made God desire to save some and not all, it was God's choice. Surely you wouldn't suggest God could not have done otherwise would you? Isn't God free, or does his desire also determine his choices? If so, who or what determines God's desires? You are left with the same dilemma. We don't fully understand self-determination or free will, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

I think I agree with your point that God does have free will and can do what he wants. The question of "COULD GOD HAVE DONE SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HE ACTUALLY DID." Is tricky because you are taken back to the essensial character of God.

Is Murder inherently wrong, or did God "freely" determine it to be wrong; but he could have done otherwise?

Does God make a totally free choice to determine to save some and not all? Or does he make that choice based on some character qualities?

 

Our Lord presented the gospel truth to Paul, but before that time, in the name of (his understanding of) God he was prepared to take the life of Christians. But Paul did not continue to oppose Christ, he chose to obey God's command and put his trust in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

 

Yes, there is certainly mystery as to why God might choose to create this versus that, but I don't believe we can conclude with any level of certainty that there is no 'room in his character' for a variety of options. For example could God have made the rose without thorns? Could he have made the white owl blue? Would doing such be a violation of his Character? It wouldn't appear so.

Could God have punished Israel instead of relenting and showing them mercy at the request of Moses? Could he have left Lazarus in the grave? If you insist that nothing could have been otherwise then there is really no such thing as 'choice' or 'available options.' You have a world determined by the Character of a being who cannot do anything other than what his innate Character dictates. Which just moves the dilemma back one more step to the next question: What determines God's character to be as it is? And Could THAT have been otherwise? This leads to an infinite regress... so, save the time and culpability issues and just accept that free will is true and mysterious.