Theology Club: Calvinism: Total Depravity and the Righteousness of God

[blackbirdking]

Thanks again,

Hopefully above you see that the camp I am in, doesn't do this. What we believe may 'point' to culpability but there are several good reasons not to push that button: 1) Because God is good,... 2) That because the whole character of God is good,... 3) That then our theology might be the problem but we must , we feel, embrace what does no harm to the character and nature of God rather than worrying overtly what it does to the character and status of man... You are right to question us therefore, and investigate this more than apparent tension. It is needed.

In Him
-Lon

I agree about doing no harm to the nature and character of God. In so doing, I would be considered an Open Theist. If God, as Calvinists assert, does have absolute foreknowledge AND foreordination AND sovereignty, I can understand the predicament of those who believe that; I did, because that's what I was taught.

Since God is 'good', everything He does is good, and agrees with His character; hence, we know His character by His works.

It's elementary, but how do you rationalize God seeing the curse on creation by means of His prescience, and that curse being good, agreeable, and pleasant to Him? If God sees the curse as good(agreeable, pleasant), what does that tell us about the character of God? If I knew before they were born, that my kids were going to be cursed and go to hell, and I said that was pleasant and agreeable to me, the whole world would agree that I'm not good. When God supposedly knew that His kids were going to be cursed and go to hell, and called it good(agreeable, pleasant) why is the response so different? Only one who is deranged believes it's good to go to hell; but it's agreeable, pleasant with the character of God?

If it's 'good' that people go to hell, and it's 'good' that people go to heaven, and He is the first cause of it all, what does that teach us about the character of God? Is there anything that is 'not good'?

Also, in real life, if you have knowledge that what you are doing is going to cause harm, you are liable for damages; with God at creation, we change the rules and profess that He's God, therefore He's not liable for the damage He knew would result from His actions; or we must say that there was no 'damage' done. Much of the Bible deals with the accountability man has for his actions. Isn't God accountable to His own justice? Does He have a double standard? Any standard at all? Again, what does that say about the character of God?

You said "there are several good reasons not to push that button"; however; what God does, shows us His true character. If the above is 'good', that's what His character is like.

Where am I wrong?

Thanks

 

[blackbirdking]

As Lon intimated, there are lots ways of dividing up Calvinists. For example,

Types of Calvinism

AMR

After following the link and others, my first thought was, "what is a Calvinist?" Many of these 'camps' disagree with each other, and some with Calvin.

Apparently the dictionary is wrong.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/calvinist the doctrines and teachings of John Calvin or his followers, emphasizing predestination, the sovereignty of God, the supreme authority of the Scriptures, and the irresistibility of grace.

So makes one a Calvinist?

Thanks again.

 

[beloved57]

Yes, but...

God has His plans and man as well as Satan are sentient beings different than animals in that we can choose to go against our nature. This is why a person born in sin can choose to go against those sin impulses as an unbeliever.

All of this is well within God's will but it is plan B. It was not His desire that man should disobey Him in the Garden, but it was according to His will (plan B).

I suppose Omniscience would suggest that this then is plan A but for me, this is second-guessing God and trying to fill omniscience's shoes with our own intellect. I believe it honestly, logically, and practically, impossible for us to do so.

Because of that, we would likely argue first and second causes (plan A's and B's) until He returns (which is why I am not double-pred, there is no necessity to have to go toward that in an area we cannot possibly reason through but must/necessarily have direct revelation which is currently not given or eluding us/me). If you believe scriptures points to that direction, I'm all ears but I've not found those clear indications from scripture to date.

In Him
-Lon

To say that some things are plan b for God is saying that all things did not originate within God's Eternal Purpose and God reacted to an impulse from the creature that He did not originally decree for the creature to do, and that is blasphemy and giving first cause to a creature outside of God !

Posted from the TOL App!

 

[Lon]

Thanks again,



I agree about doing no harm to the nature and character of God. In so doing, I would be considered an Open Theist. If God, as Calvinists assert, does have absolute foreknowledge AND foreordination AND sovereignty, I can understand the predicament of those who believe that; I did, because that's what I was taught.

Since God is 'good', everything He does is good, and agrees with His character; hence, we know His character by His works.

It's elementary, but how do you rationalize God seeing the curse on creation by means of His prescience, and that curse being good, agreeable, and pleasant to Him? If God sees the curse as good(agreeable, pleasant), what does that tell us about the character of God? If I knew before they were born, that my kids were going to be cursed and go to hell, and I said that was pleasant and agreeable to me, the whole world would agree that I'm not good. When God supposedly knew that His kids were going to be cursed and go to hell, and called it good(agreeable, pleasant) why is the response so different? Only one who is deranged believes it's good to go to hell; but it's agreeable, pleasant with the character of God?

There are underlying assumptions you are making for such. Open Theism is one way of getting away from implications but I rather wrestled a long time. I believe scripture demands that I believe God to be Omniscient and Sovereign so Open Theism wasn't a possibility. My belief started out child-like a long time ago: "God is good, so it doesn't matter what this looks like, it isn't true." On top of that, Sovereignty doesn't mean controlling or else sin could not exist. Rather, God ordained (allowed) what came to be. This doesn't mean it doesn't grieve the heart of God. Freewill was something we weren't supposed to get, it came when sin removed us from doing God's will. We are free in about the same manner that a car with a cracked block is free from having to stay on the road. I don't think just because we weren't bolted to a track, that this meant God created us with freewill, because we were clearly able to obey God (or in the analogy, 'stay on the road'). Off-road is not freedom and is not the gift.

If it's 'good' that people go to hell, and it's 'good' that people go to heaven, and He is the first cause of it all, what does that teach us about the character of God? Is there anything that is 'not good'?

It isn't His good pleasure that men should go to hell, but that men and women would be saved from it.

Also, in real life, if you have knowledge that what you are doing is going to cause harm, you are liable for damages; with God at creation, we change the rules and profess that He's God, therefore He's not liable for the damage He knew would result from His actions; or we must say that there was no 'damage' done. Much of the Bible deals with the accountability man has for his actions. Isn't God accountable to His own justice? Does He have a double standard? Any standard at all? Again, what does that say about the character of God?

Even Open Theism doesn't stop us from accusing God of this because He can stop any attrocity happening at any time in a second. We rather know we are responsible for sin. God is not culpable for disobedience, regardless if He knew what would happen. Ford and Chevy know that people are going to die in their cars. We never sue Ford or Chevy for accidental deaths. We don't even think they are evil for it, but we all know that many of the cars they make this year are going to kill people. There is no sin for them to make these cars.

You said "there are several good reasons not to push that button"; however; what God does, shows us His true character. If the above is 'good', that's what His character is like.

Where am I wrong?

Thanks

As above, we don't have to push the "Chevy and Ford are guilty button" either. We accept the good as outweighing the bad and believe Chevy and Ford only intend the good. This is how foreknowledge of God works as well, in my understanding. Yes He knew that men and women would die in sins but His "intention" wasn't for that to happen, and in fact, He is and was working against that the whole time. His intention is for perfection, not what is destroyed in sin.

 

[Lon]

To say that some things are plan b for God is saying that all things did not originate within God's Eternal Purpose and God reacted to an impulse from the creature that He did not originally decree for the creature to do, and that is blasphemy and giving first cause to a creature outside of God !

Posted from the TOL App!

No, to me it is saying that man can misuse what God intends. If I build a car that some people will use to purposefully drive over other people, I am not guilty of people driving over other people. If I make guns that I know 1 in 4 will but used in crimes, I am not the author of crimes. "My" intention for making them is different from those using them. They are responsible for their use/misuse of those.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So makes one a Calvinist?

For starters, I consider myself a Reformed Protestant by the most accurate label, which implies matters related to church polity, paedo-baptism, covenantalism, and more.

That said, it is important to note:
All Reformed are Calvinists. Not all Calvinists are Reformed.

The most basic definition of a "Calvinist" would be someone who holds to the doctrines of grace from Scripture that were best systematized by Calvin in his Institutes. He was not the first to do so historically, but his efforts were so well done that others often get forgotten.

These doctrines of grace ended up be summarized in an acrostic, TULIP, by a Pastor in the early 1900s as a nifty memory aid. Not a few think the mnemonic TULIP was something Calvin originated. The components underlying TULIP actually were from a meeting some fifty-four years after the death of Calvin. A synod in Dort was held (1618) to address the position of the followers of the teachings of Arminius. Soon after the death of Arminius his followers organized a Remonstrance (a formal protest), presenting five points to the Church of Holland seeking to have its catechism and Belgic Confession revised. Those five points of Arminius' followers were:

1. God elects or reproves on the foreseen faith or unbelief.
2. Christ died for all men although only believers are saved.
3. Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary to bring man unto faith.
4. This grace may be resisted.
5. Whether or not all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere requires further investigation.

The response to these Remonstrants is easily summarized by the TULIP acrostic.

These doctrines of grace are a useful didactic for understanding the message of God's redemptive work, from Genesis to Revelation:

1. Is humanity basically good or totally depraved? If it is basically good, the concept of Savior is irrelevant; all we need is a guru with a self-improvement plan. (When you study Liberal theology, this is really what they are teaching. An infallible Bible, Virgin Birth, literal resurrection are not really important to their theology.)

2. Is God sovereign? If He is, then His covenant people must have been chosen by unconditional election. If He isn't, then it is really our will which determines providence. (Many people really think, God helps those who help themselves is actually in the Bible.)

3. What happened on the Cross? Did Christ pay the one, all-sufficient price for the sins of the covenant people, or did he merely make redemption a possibility for whomever might choose to accept the offer, or did He pay the price for everyone, regardless of faith? The meaning of the celebration of Easter is determined by how we answer this.

4. Do we choose God or does He choose us? If grace is irresistible, then God draws to the Christ all His covenant people, no one will be lost; if it is not, then if we don't "save souls for Jesus" some who might have gone to go to Heaven won't.

5. Can we lose our salvation? If God is not able to equip His covenant people to persevere, then He cannot really offer eternal life. Confident Christians are more fruitful.

A person agreeing with the above five points, would be popularly known as a "Calvinist". Someone disagreeing with one of the five points, may be often called a "Four Point Calvinist" and so on.

AMR

 

[beloved57]

No, to me it is saying that man can misuse what God intends. If I build a car that some people will use to purposefully drive over other people, I am not guilty of people driving over other people. If I make guns that I know 1 in 4 will but used in crimes, I am not the author of crimes. "My" intention for making them is different from those using them. They are responsible for their use/misuse of those.

To say that some things are plan b for God is saying that all things did not originate within God's Eternal Purpose and God reacted to an impulse from the creature that He did not originally decree for the creature to do, and that is blasphemy and giving first cause to a creature outside of God !



Posted from the TOL App!

 

[Lon]

To say that some things are plan b for God is saying that all things did not originate within God's Eternal Purpose and God reacted to an impulse from the creature that He did not originally decree for the creature to do, and that is blasphemy and giving first cause to a creature outside of God !

So is God the direct author of sin in your understanding?

God cannot sin or cause sin "God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all." 1 John 1:5

My answer: Sin is outside of His desire but falls within His knowledge and foreordination. Sin was not caused by His will or influence. As such, sin will always remain apart from Him and as such, it requires me to view it as a secondary cause, influenced by the serpent in the garden.

Neither Ford nor Chevy are the author of car-wrecks. Car-wrecks are authored by drivers.

 

[beloved57]

So is God the direct author of sin in your understanding?

God cannot sin or cause sin "God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all." 1 John 1:5

I have explained myself thoroughly on my view of God and sin in my thread on God's purpose of Creation, that it was Redemptive in Christ ! And again :






To say that some things are plan b for God is saying that all things did not originate within God's Eternal Purpose and God reacted to an impulse from the creature that He did not originally decree for the creature to do, and that is blasphemy and giving first cause to a creature outside of God !



Posted from the TOL App!

 

[Lon]

I have explained myself thoroughly on my view of God and sin in my thread on God's purpose of Creation, that it was Redemptive in Christ !

No need at all for being defensive in this section. We discuss rather than debate here, as I understand it. So as far as that goes, I'd like to see it. I'll try and look it up.

And again :
To say that some things are plan b for God is saying that all things did not originate within God's Eternal Purpose and God reacted to an impulse from the creature that He did not originally decree for the creature to do, and that is blasphemy and giving first cause to a creature outside of God !

I disagree that it makes Him reactionary because exhaustive foreknowledge (for one) eliminates that logic. There is no necessity in the logical end you believe. I understand why you hold to it, I just believe it isn't the only answer to this question.
This is what makes us different kinds of Calvinists, of course.

 

[beloved57]

lon

No need at all for being defensive in this section. We discuss rather than debate here,

Thats fine, I have stated what I had to say to you, and for further explaining of what my view is on God and sin, and why He purposed it before all Creation for His Glory through Christ, See my thread here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62187

Within it also I show why its blasphemous to think that God did not, within Himself, decree and purpose sin for His own Glory !

 

[blackbirdking]

There are underlying assumptions you are making for such. Open Theism is one way of getting away from implications but I rather wrestled a long time. I believe scripture demands that I believe God to be Omniscient and Sovereign so Open Theism wasn't a possibility. My belief started out child-like a long time ago: "God is good, so it doesn't matter what this looks like, it isn't true." On top of that, Sovereignty doesn't mean controlling or else sin could not exist. Rather, God ordained (allowed) what came to be.

You use the word ordain to mean allow; how is that? Ordain in the dictionary, is different.

This doesn't mean it doesn't grieve the heart of God.

Since it did grieve His heart, it grieved His heart when He saw it before creation; therefore, when He saw everything that He had made and said "it was good", He was saying that even though His heart was grieved, it was good(agreeable, pleasant). What does that tell us about God?

Freewill was something we weren't supposed to get, it came when sin removed us from doing God's will.

Since God knew it beforehand, what does that tell us about the character of God? Maybe about His Sovereignty?

We are free in about the same manner that a car with a cracked block is free from having to stay on the road. I don't think just because we weren't bolted to a track, that this meant God created us with freewill, because we were clearly able to obey God (or in the analogy, 'stay on the road'). Off-road is not freedom and is not the gift.

Are you saying you believe in free will, or that you don't? I'm saying since God knows, freewill is irrelevant.

It isn't His good pleasure that men should go to hell, but that men and women would be saved from it.

Agreed; however, He saw that they were going to hell; when He saw them, while He knew they were going hell, and while He could stop them, He said that was good(agreeable, pleasant). 'Good'? How?

Even Open Theism doesn't stop us from accusing God of this because He can stop any attrocity happening at any time in a second. We rather know we are responsible for sin. God is not culpable for disobedience, regardless if He knew what would happen. Ford and Chevy know that people are going to die in their cars. We never sue Ford or Chevy for accidental deaths. We don't even think they are evil for it, but we all know that many of the cars they make this year are going to kill people. There is no sin for them to make these cars.

How so? According to your, "scripture demands that I believe God to be Omniscient and Sovereign", Ford/Chevy are held accountable because they can do something about fatal accidents; only when they have no knowledge of a prior problem, and when they do what is required to fix a known problem within their creations, are they not liable. Neither are they liable for driver's error; they did not create that. It came from another source... We the people would not buy their cars, if we thought they were unsafe; we would unconscientiously hold them accountable.

As above, we don't have to push the "Chevy and Ford are guilty button" either. We accept the good as outweighing the bad and believe Chevy and Ford only intend the good. This is how foreknowledge of God works as well, in my understanding. Yes He knew that men and women would die in sins but His "intention" wasn't for that to happen, and in fact, He is and was working against that the whole time. His intention is for perfection, not what is destroyed in sin.

If indeed God has all power, and all knowledge, and not all men escape hell; what does that tell us about God? No matter how we say it.

The last question I asked, I also asked thirty-eight years ago of a teacher who claimed to be Wesleyan/Arminian, at a Wesleyan/Arminian college; the answer was much the same. "We trust God". I think we all are wrong sometimes, including myself; that's why I'm glad you are willing to discuss this 'tension'; hopefully I can learn.

Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.

Thanks

 

[Lon]

Hello BBK,
I felt I did a good job paring down the last post to be succinct. Not so much this one, bear with me again, please. The good news is I 'think' you won't have to respond to all of it, only what interests you and/or you need clarifiers on.

You use the word ordain to mean allow; how is that? Ordain in the dictionary, is different.

Because His own plans for making it work together for good of those who love Him is already in place before it ever happens. Even in the Open View, God is omnicompetent, such that He knows all moves well before any of them are ever made. Open Theists believe in a better foreknowledge of God than man has but less than most theologians believe about His exhaustive foreknowledge.

Since it did grieve His heart, it grieved His heart when He saw it before creation; therefore, when He saw everything that He had made and said "it was good", He was saying that even though His heart was grieved, it was good(agreeable, pleasant). What does that tell us about God?

It would be the same with Ford or Chevy: "This is a good car."
You do your best even if your creatures don't do theirs because God cannot do otherwise.

Since God knew it beforehand, what does that tell us about the character of God? Maybe about His Sovereignty?

Literally, that He is God and that He cannot be otherwise. It also tells you that you are responsible for your own choices and actions.
I am responsible for my children so their choices and actions but parents don't go to prison for their children's choices. If we applied some of our same logic to parents that 'seem' to indict us, there'd be a lot more parents in prison. It is good to ask these questions of God and Calvinists, but it isn't always good to press them home or draw conclusions based on the questions because some of them we just don't know. By example again, we know some parents don't do as well as others, we don't over-think the connection between those incarcerated and their parents.

Are you saying you believe in free will, or that you don't? I'm saying since God knows, freewill is irrelevant.

I use freewill only in the sense of 'free from God' which is what sin did to us, and why we are dying in them without Christ. And as believers, in the sense that we are now free to follow Christ.

Agreed; however, He saw that they were going to hell; when He saw them, while He knew they were going hell, and while He could stop them, He said that was good(agreeable, pleasant). 'Good'? How?

You mean creation, here from Genesis 1, correct? It is good like a car is the best a car-maker can make. Knowing what is going to happen to these in the future does not mean what you made is not good.
We aren't talking normal wear and tear, we are talking user-error.

How so? According to your, "scripture demands that I believe God to be Omniscient and Sovereign", Ford/Chevy are held accountable because they can do something about fatal accidents; only when they have no knowledge of a prior problem, and when they do what is required to fix a known problem within their creations, are they not liable. Neither are they liable for driver's error; they did not create that. It came from another source... We the people would not buy their cars, if we thought they were unsafe; we would unconscientiously hold them accountable.

Again, I don't believe Ford or Chevy have to make tanks knowing that many who drive their cars will be killed in them. The drivers will fall asleep at the wheel. They will drink and drive, they will not replace very worn tires. They 'can' make you come in for regular maintenance. They can put alcohol testers that require you to breath in them in order to start your car. They are able, then to stop you from having an accident. Why then don't we demand that? Just because something looks like it might could possibly accuse somebody is not a win in culpability. I'd reckon you'd never be able to win a case against Chevy or Ford because we all agree, despite accusatory evidence a creative mind can readily find, we know it is not thier fault (most of the time). Even if we knew what Car-makers could do to meet our satisfaction of safety, we still buy them as is which also means it is yet our fault.

If indeed God has all power, and all knowledge, and not all men escape hell; what does that tell us about God? No matter how we say it.

That, as grieved as He was, He did it for you (and for me). Read the parable of the wheat and the tares again, He is deeply concerned about the wheat.

The last question I asked, I also asked thirty-eight years ago of a teacher who claimed to be Wesleyan/Arminian, at a Wesleyan/Arminian college; the answer was much the same. "We trust God". I think we all are wrong sometimes, including myself; that's why I'm glad you are willing to discuss this 'tension'; hopefully I can learn.

Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.

Thanks

Oh no, I didn't mean don't ask, I meant don't hit the 'guilty' button. I think sometimes we go beyond 'reasonable' but I don't always know where that querry starts or ends either.

I'm pleased to be considering these questions with you.

 

[blackbirdking]

Hello BBK,
That, as grieved as He was, He did it for you (and for me). Read the parable of the wheat and the tares again, He is deeply concerned about the wheat.

I'm pleased to be considering these questions with you.

Simply put:

Can God save every man from going to hell?

Does God want every man to not go to hell?

 

[Lon]

Simply put:

Can God save every man from going to hell?

Yes but decretively will not.

Does God want every man to not go to hell?

With God, 'want' is a difficult discussion for who can resist His will? Romans 9:19
Romans 9 plays out these questions we have in consideration here. The next verse Paul says that God can do as He wills with expectation that He is God and we are mere vessels to ask such questions. But Paul then proceeds to say that God was willing to put up with objects of His wrath (sinners who will not repent) for this reason:
<DIR>Rom 9:22 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,
</DIR>Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--

 

[Totton Linnet]

Simply put:

Can God save every man from going to hell?

Does God want every man to not go to hell?

People hate God without a cause, when they see Him in the flesh they nail Him to a tree.

God's enemies will certainly spend eternity in hell.

 

[blackbirdking]

People hate God without a cause, when they see Him in the flesh they nail Him to a tree.

God's enemies will certainly spend eternity in hell.

I don't understand what you mean, "without a cause". I don't think it's possible to do that according to my understanding of "hate".

I agree "God's enemies will certainly spend eternity in hell." Because they refused to see God as good.

 

[blackbirdking]

Yes but decretively will not.

So God can save everybody.

With God, 'want' is a difficult discussion for who can resist His will? Romans 9:19
Romans 9 plays out these questions we have in consideration here. The next verse Paul says that God can do as He wills with expectation that He is God and we are mere vessels to ask such questions. But Paul then proceeds to say that God was willing to put up with objects of His wrath (sinners who will not repent) for this reason:
<DIR>Rom 9:22 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,
</DIR>Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--

So God doesn't want to save everybody?

If God can, but doesn't want to, why doesn't He want to save them? If you are saying, "in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--", that tells me that God deliberately is not going to save some, because He wants glory, in return for people going to hell. Since He is trading glory for Himself, in exchange for hell for man, His character is in question. His pleasure is dependent upon the suffering of others. Is that a Biblical concept?

 

[Lon]

So God can save everybody.



So God doesn't want to save everybody?

If God can, but doesn't want to, why doesn't He want to save them? If you are saying, "in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--", that tells me that God deliberately is not going to save some, because He wants glory, in return for people going to hell. Since He is trading glory for Himself, in exchange for hell for man, His character is in question. His pleasure is dependent upon the suffering of others. Is that a Biblical concept?

Again, this is 'like' sayiing Ford deliberately makes cars to kill people. Ford doesn't make cars for those who die, but those who live. In the same manner, God's plan is to redeem. We do indeed have to look at what these sinners mean in the hands of an angry God but remember we both believe they are responsible for thier own sins. When I was only seven, nobody had to tell me I was a sinner and that I had been a 'bad' boy. I knew and was completely culpable for them. That summer, when I heard the gospel for the first time, I like to cried and incredible love rescued even me. I think we 'can' find reason to cast blame whereever we like and we certainly could do so with Ford, but their motives are above reproach (in the general sense of making cars to service travelling needs - not that Ford has never been rightfully sued). God has never been sued (and without need of caveates as above with Ford). If I were the head of Ford, I think I'd feel bad for those who died in my cars and I'd work on safety (as all car manufacturers do), but I'd still think I was providing for a genuine need in society with all good intention, even knowing that some nameless ones were going to die in the next year.

 

[blackbirdking]

Again, this is 'like' sayiing Ford deliberately makes cars to kill people. Ford doesn't make cars for those who die, but those who live. In the same manner, God's plan is to redeem. We do indeed have to look at what these sinners mean in the hands of an angry God but remember we both believe they are responsible for thier own sins. When I was only seven, nobody had to tell me I was a sinner and that I had been a 'bad' boy. I knew and was completely culpable for them. That summer, when I heard the gospel for the first time, I like to cried and incredible love rescued even me. I think we 'can' find reason to cast blame whereever we like and we certainly could do so with Ford, but their motives are above reproach (in the general sense of making cars to service travelling needs - not that Ford has never been rightfully sued). God has never been sued (and without need of caveates as above with Ford). If I were the head of Ford, I think I'd feel bad for those who died in my cars and I'd work on safety (as all car manufacturers do), but I'd still think I was providing for a genuine need in society with all good intention, even knowing that some nameless ones were going to die in the next year.

I'm talking about absolute foreknowledge: maybe I don't get it.

So Ford has an inspector, whose duty it is to know which cars are going to have fatal accidents, due to his absolute foreknowledge; if Ford did not pull those cars from the assembly line, Ford would be responsible for the accidents. If word got out that Ford knew which cars were going to be involved in fatal accidents, even ordained them to have accidents, and sold them anyways, who would believe that Ford wasn't responsible?

On the other hand, if Ford knew, and pulled those cars, fatal accidents in Ford cars would cease.

If Ford had absolute foreknowledge, and wouldn't pull those cars, why not?

It would definitely have something to do with the character of Ford.