You really have not been reasding the cal/arm discussions here on the BB!
MANY have referred to what I have been detaing in this OP discussion!
Which is really the most tragic story?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Feb 8, 2012.
Page 4 of 6
-
-
#2. The problem with your thinking is not that you don't see God accomplishing some end goal. We all agree on that. The problem with your thinking is that God has NO PURPOSE for MOST of what is happening on the way to that end goal.
Is everything going according to plan or not? Did God know everything that was going to happen if he made the world the way he made it or not?
Welcome to the Doctrines of Grace and Exhaustive Sovereignty.:wavey:
-
Unless you embrace Openness, you have the exact same problem.
You have God, who knows beforehand that if he creates the world the way he intends to create it, that it will result in the damnation of billions of souls. Yet he goes right ahead and creates it that way anyway.
And your justification for the damnation of these souls that God knew would be damned before he made them?
It is this: FREE WILL IS THAT IMPORTANT IN GOD'S SCHEME THAT IT IS WORTH THE ETERNAL DAMNATION OF BILLIONS OF SOULS.
That is your system.
For what other reason do you believe that God is willing to make a world where he knows BILLIONS of souls will burn in hell forever? -
Listen. I confess that it is a HARD, HARD fact for me to embrace that God made a world where he knew people, billions of them, would perish.
I confess that Calvinism does not scratch that itch of mine along these lines.
I want to know WHY? WHY did God do this? Calvinism can not answer that question to my emotional satisfaction.
But neither does any other system that still has God being God.
Openness theology just says God did not know. THAT IS NOT GOD!!
The Arminian has the EXACT same dilemma the Calvinist does. God willing to build a world- BY DESIGN- in which billions will perish.
So what does the Calvinist AND ARMINIAN have to do on this subject?
Trust God.
But here's the kicker. I'd rather trust God and be able to say to hurting people- God is on his throne- it's not just that HE WILL RULE IN THE END, but that he does rule NOW. And its not just that he rules overarchingly from a distance- but that he rules in every single situation of every single person every single second. He does not just set up and take down leaders by his active involvement in his creation. He actually controls the setting down and rising up of every single person every single hour of every single day. And he has a divine, holy, glorious purpose for this thing as horrible as it is. Just like he planned before he built the universe for Jesus to go to Calvary as horrible a thing as that was and yet he brought GLORIOUS and WONDROUS things out of that horrible event- JUST SO he planned this and he will bring something glorious and wondrous out of it as well.
God is too wise to be mistaken; God is to good to be unkind. If you can't see his plan; if you don't understand; if you can't trace his hand... TRUST HIS HEART!
The Arminian can only say- "This tragedy has no purpose; it serves no grand design, it was never meant to happen and God could have stopped it if he wanted to- ESPECIALLY SINCE HE HAD NO PURPOSE FOR IT- but he chose not to."
That is the dilemma we are both faced with. -
God clearly uses secondary means to accomplish His purposes. There are several incidents of this in the Scriptures. He has used these to afflict people, and He has used these secondary means to take people out. Absalom for instance.
Those who trust Him in the midst of these means truly trust in Him. Job showed this to us. -
1. If His motive is pure then why argue He uses secondary means? Just argue His motive is pure so that makes it right, as you have said before. By that logic you could just say God murdered/raped/stole or whatever but it was for a good purpose.
2. In your view God is not just taking EVIL and turning it, He is MAKING evil to accomplish good.
-
This puts the Arminian and the Calvinist in the same boat with the same problem.
There is no mystery to appeal to here.
Only a small percentage of them are being saved despite God's BEST efforts and APPARENTLY- his best laid plans.
That is simply not God Skandelon.
And that belief of yours that, in my opinion cannot match the all-knowing, almighty God of the Bible- it STILL does not exonerate God from evil or from the damnation of billions of souls any more than Calvinism does.
Your system STILL has God making billions of people who he knew would perish if he made them like he made them in the world that he made- yet he is going right ahead and making them anyway- EXACTLY in the same way that he knew would ultimately result in their damnation.
In your system, just as much as in my system, God has a purpose. God has a purpose in making these doomed souls in your system, does he not? These souls that he KNOWS will go to hell if he makes them just the way he makes them- does he not have a purpose for going right ahead and making them any way?
Certainly he does. Do you know that purpose?
No. And you cannot explain it in your system one ounce better than we can in ours. -
For example, and please hear me out on this, the bible talks about God making choices all the time. But as we have discussed before how are we to understand how an eternal being comes to make a choice between available options? If he has always known what He would choose then how does He choose? How does He ever originate a thought or idea if He has always known that thought or idea? How did he come to create Luke? If the idea of Luke has eternally existed then does that mean you are a necessity of God's nature in that God is dependent upon your existence and had to create you? Certainly you wouldn't suggest that creation is a necessity for God, are you? Is He not self sufficient? See, what I mean? These things are BEYOND our understanding and conclusions shouldn't be drawn based on mere speculation.
-
But your system does not exonerate God from these things one ounce more than does ours, Skandelon.
Unless you limit God's knowledge and thus make God less than God- you CANNOT present any better defense of God concerning the origin of evil and the damnation of multitudes than we can.
Here's the fact of the matter.
The debate betwixt the two systems is not on which system exonerates God from the origin of evil- because NEITHER system does this. BOTH systems have to appeal to mystery and both systems have God building a universe in which he knows that billions will perish- yet he goes right ahead in both systems and builds it any way.
The debate betwixt our two systems is really about whether or not God is truly Sovereign at all times in all situations great and small- from the setting of kings to the car accident down the road to the sparrow that falls in a field where no one ever sees it.
If God has no purpose for any evil then he has no purpose for MOST of what happens in our world everyday. MOST of it is a senseless tragedy that he could have stopped but chose not to.
And if he is only ruling in the good and only bringing to pass good things and all tragedies are outside his jurisdiction- then he does not rule much in this world.
What makes killing, murder? Motive.
What makes sex, rape? Motive.
What makes evil, evil? Motive.
The motive of God in tragedies, like the death of his Son, is always pure. The people responsible for the tragedies do not have pure motives. Pilate, Herod, the Pharisees and the Romans did not kill Jesus for the glory of the One True God- their motive was evil so their part in the death of Jesus was MURDER.
God the Father's part in it was NOT murder because his motive was pure and noble.
-
2. It would only be a failure if God tried to irresistibly save them and couldn't. That is not our claim.
-
-
In a system where God creates others with creative abilities, this is not a question. Satan created/originated his own evil motive. Dahmer created his own evil intent. We just take the scripture at face value, and if it says that 'evil was found in him" we actually believe it instead of speculating as to how God may have come to know of this evil prior to creating him etc.
Your system is what creates the problems.
How does God originate a new idea or thought? How does he make a choice? Explain it. -
-
God does not ever ACTUALLY choose- it is just that there is no better way to describe what God is doing in such circumstances.
If you are going to throw logic out the door, then you reduce us to not being able to know anything.
You don't get to cherry pick when logic can be applied to God and when it cannot. You do not get to be the arbiter of that.
We must apply logic consistently to God until our ability to utilize logic is exhausted. This does not mean that the rest of God is not logical. It means that we are only able to carry logic so far. But as far as we are able to carry it- it is applicable.
That is a terrible error.
We say, "God is all knowing and always has been and never has learned anything because he has always known all there is to know about everything that is or ever will be- how we reconcile that fact with what exist seeming to be a necessity in God's nature- we do not know. But we will not make God less than he is just because we cannot UNDERSTAND how he has always known all there is to ever know about everything."
You simply cannot get around that, Skandelon.
You can appeal to mystery all you want but the only way you can get around it, brother, is if you TOTALLY redefine OMNISCIENCE.
This is what you are attempting to do by this line of reasoning that says, "God makes choices and learns things and makes people who does not really know are going to be damned before he makes them."
There is no way that that reasoning is anything other than a total redefinition of omniscience.
Either God has always known all there is to ever know about everything or he does not.
If he does not, most of us cannot see how he could truly be God. -
You have God in your system knowing beforehand all that will happen if he makes everything the way he makes it and yet he goes right ahead and makes it that way anyway which does not exonerate God from evil one ounce more than Calvinism....
or....
You have God making things not KNOWING what will come of them.
The latter is far worse, in my opinion, than the former.
You have God making Jack who he knows will not "choose" Him and go to hell and burn forever.
God knows if he makes the world like he is going to make it and if he makes Jack in that world at that time in those circumstances- he knows what Jack will choose to do and he knows that Jack will go to hell- and yet your system has God making Jack anyway and making the world which he knew would fall into which Jack would be born.
It is the same problem.
Or you redefine omniscience to mean that God has not always known all there is to ever know about everything to, instead, mean that- God knows a whole bunch about a lot of stuff and very little about the future.
Those are your options, Skandelon.
Your system either makes God less than what it takes to be God (not eternally all-knowing, not eternally Sovereign, etc...) or it has the EXACT same problems that Calvinism has.
-
Now, imagine the baby interpreting the 'cooing' as meaning that the poop coming out of his pants was put there by the parent.
That is what I believe Calvinists are doing when they draw conclusions about God that are not revealed in the text. If we can't even understand how God comes to make a choice or originate a new idea, how on earth do you think we can understand the casual relationship between what God foreknows and creates? Yet, somehow you know with certainty that God has determined that which he foreknew prior to creation??? And you are willing to hold to that speculative comment as if it is proven fact even when the bible tells us that God is perfectly holy and has not trace of evil and doesn't even tempt men to evil???
You said earlier that there is no better way to describe what God is doing in such circumstances, yet you are attempting to describe what God is doing using different terms? Do you think you are better at picking the needed terms to describe how God does things than the authors of scripture?
Scripture says that God made choices, yet Luke somehow knows better terms to describe God and his working? Really? -
I believe it is God knowing all things, but I claim not to know how that causally effects the free moral actions of creatures.
You believe God knowing all things prior to creating all things is equal to predetermining all things.
Thus, in your view there isn't a need for the word "omniscience" because carries the exact same meaning as "predetermination."
In my view both words are needed because both words have different meanings, as there are something God is said to have predetermined and some things God is said to have foreknown. Your system leaves no room for such distinctions thus REDEFINES one would to mean the same thing as another.
Now, who is redefining the word omniscience? -
All that illustration can illustrate is that God has to greatly condescend to us and use our limited terminology to explain to us what he is doing.
It has nothing to do with our ability to interpret anything. You stretch it too far.
This is not complex at all. It is VERY, VERY easy to recognize this as anthropomorphic language.
We can also understand that if God is truly all knowing and eternal then he has always known all there is to ever know about everything.
It does not take even a semester of theology to understand that. I understood it when I was 16. Most of the people on baptistboard understand it very clearly.
God is INDEED eternally all-knowing.
Any language that seems to contradict this fact is simply, very simply, anthropomorphic.
I am simply pointing out that your system, if it does not embrace Greg Boyd's openness theology, as it seems to be doing here, is no better at exonerating God from the origin of evil and the damnation of billions of souls than Calvinism is.
Both systems, except for openness theology, are terribly deficient at offering an emotionally satisfying explanation that exonerates God from the origin of evil.
Now, if you just redefine omniscience and thus, in my opinion, redefine God- then yes- God can be exonerated quite easily from the creation of evil.
The problem is that this "God" in this system is exonerated by pleading ignorance.
He just did not KNOW that if he made the world that all this mess was going to happen. This "God" seems to me to have a far more serious problem, though, than being the creator of evil. His problem is, it seems to me- incompetence.
God, as perfectly holy, does not tempt men to evil. Calvinism has no problem with that. -
We are not debating how God's foreknowledge causally effects things or even whether or not it does. That has nothing to do with our exchange on this thread.
What we are debating is the fact that your system- if it does not totally redefine God's attribute of omniscience- offers no more emotionally satisfying exoneration of God from the origin of evil and the damnation of billions of souls than does Calvinism.
It literally has to redefine omniscience from meaning "God eternally knowing all there is to ever know about everything" to meaning "God knowing a whole bunch about a lot of things- except the future and the outcome of his creation- on those two things he knows very little- EXCEPT the very END- now he does know the end- but he does not know about all the billions of souls that are going to perish between the beginning and the end. If he knew something about that he would not allow it- but he just didn't know."
Page 4 of 6