Our Moral God

[Clete]

Not at all, why? Because 'assumptions.' For one, Evil isn't an entity. Does it exist 'inside' of God's universe? Of course (but it isn't an entity, it is a deprivatation, a lack). Prove it wrong, and please try and think before assumptions (you've a good mind and I generally think better of your thought process and ability than you do of mine).

That which promotes life is the good and that which promotes death (i.e. the negation of life) is the evil but neither exists in the sense that good and evil are some sort of substances where they exist in the ontological sense of the word "exist".

I suppose you could say that good exists in the person of God and perhaps that evil exists in the person of Satan but even that seems like something of a figure of speech because whether a person is good or evil is determined by their actions (whether in thought, word or deed).

Is that what you're getting at?

 

[Clete]

Colossians 1:16-18 John 15:5 Philippians 2:13 Acts 17:28

Because you think so? You are setting yourself up for a problem to 'your' logic.

Wouldn't it have been better to ask, or are you this self-assured?

If you won't (by declarative) listen, is there a point? Never-the-less I'll give the proof:
1) There is nothing, nadda, that exists outside of God and (Colossians 1:16-18 says it is so in clarity here)
2) God does not exist 'in' anything eternally (John 1:3)
.: (therefore) whatever exists is necessarily 'from' God.

-talking points a) is any point 'assailable?' and show work b) Oddities are simply not dealing with the above proposition, such as 'evil.' Evil isn't a 'thing' but an absence of God and His righteousness, a deprivation. c) Had Jesus been 'flesh' prior? No, BUT the thing is implicit within His creative being. We are not talking about a 'new' thing, but a restriction as man. IOW, God had no restrictions but Philippians 2 is clear, when He became flesh He 'put aside' in a limiting fashion. This is not 'new' as in He didn't know what flesh was, but rather different in every sense that He had not chosen such restriction. He was fully man. Fully man, however, is already a given in that all (all) things come from Him.

You should NOT (neither you nor JR) be pitting one scripture against the other, that would be/is irresponsible. Instead, the two must inform each other in our theology. Don't like it? Proffer a correction or something better then! Quit doing the assertion, relegation, name-calling which is unfit for discussion between member of the body. Do better! Put a bit more love on the bread you are serving instead of this dismal offering.

Shouldn't you both 'be wrestling' with the paradigm 'with' me instead attack me for presenting a scripture? How in the convoluted world that is yours, did you both make that poor decision. What in either of your thinking could have possibly brought it about? Is it a stand-by from Calvinist/Augustine discussion that I've neglected to catch? A reaction to previous conversations that I'm just not seeing such limited scope of response upon? Why not both of you, deal with the scriptures rather. If you believe you are 'not as dumb as Lon' then be of service instead of emoting a frustration. Go to the scriptures and make and incredibly better use of your time than emoting about what is 'nonsense' to you. I'm not happy neither of you understand the problems in your own logic, but these can be corrected and in service, I attempt it below*


Er, no. Restating "Perhaps, IN MY THINKING, ...it'd be a better OV tack to simply say "the universe didn't exist at one time" therefore is a 'new' thing. The logical problem for us on the other side: It 'yet' comes from Him and thus is an expression of His eternal being. The largest discussion point that will ever be the big picture in OV discussion is whether anything exists, apart from God.

Because you don't understand the paradigm. Ask instead of tell. It is why we 'stop' as often as we do. YOU, my friend, stop the thinking process and then another jumps on the bandwagon as if the Open paradigm is the end-all of discussion. VERY simply, follow:
1) There is nothing, nadda, that exists outside of God and (Colossians 1:16-18 says it is so in clarity here)
2) God does not exist 'in' anything eternally (John 1:3)
.: (therefore) whatever exists is necessarily 'from' God.

Read it and weep then: Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Go ahead. Tell God "No it doesn't. "

Colossians 1:16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Open theology does a poor job accounting for this passage.

A reiteration: "Through(still) all and in (still) all. Who cares if your mind isn't keeping up. It becomes 'stupid, parroting, convoluted?' Do better or I simply leave you where you were before thread. Why do these always (ALWAYS) wind down to you emoting all over the place with childish rants and 'logic' tossed out the window?


I really don't care about this portion of discussion. You say "cop-out" and I say "Scape-goat." It is of no consequence.

No, I can easily just go to scriptures without the hang-up.

Well, thankfully, you are not a Catholic pope so it doesn't matter what you think. Do you even know the difference?

Can you seriously not think? You 'accused' me of it, but you are the one who is emoting AND understanding not a thing I've said (nor has J R).

No, by your 'inability' you 'think' that is so. Proof sets are much better than assertions because they show where someone thinking goes off and we can correct it.

*Clete and JR's proposition of truth:

1) Lonnie says all things come from God (true)
2) Satan comes from God (true, but not in that sorry state)
.: ) Therefore God is the author of evil (illogical leap having NOTHING to do with the proof set).

Replace 2) in the proofset with "Evil is a thing" and you'd have Jr's .: assertion, but I disagree with such in the proposition (don't disagree that God created Satan). There is no way either of you can make God the author of evil in my OR your proofsets. It just isn't logical, demonstrably. Please do clear up and give your own proofs, if capable of doings so. I'd appreciate them for clarity and furthering ahead the thread.


Add that to your illogical proof set. This btw, deals with ominpresence and is somewhat connected to discussion, but certainly not the main point or thrust. It is, JR and Clete pay attention, NOT thinking. It is emoting about something you are not following or understanding and a knee-jerk when questions would have better served. I'm not trying to be mean. I'm trying to say I'm a bit frustrated your thinking was checked at the door. I expect better from both of you, not that JR was too forward, but you both have to own your talking points as lacking at this venture.

All from your imagination as well as some tainting by your conversations with Augustine and Calvin. Use a proof set and prove the point else leave it as assertion that has no foundation in our conversation. I get the emote, I do. I think I even understand where it is coming from but I don't believe it serves any of us. It certainly doesn't do a thing for me. I don't believe it has done a thing (at all) for the thread, and it stagnates conversation and needful dialogue. Respectfully, (forgive if it wasn't, I endeavored) -Lon

Lon,

I had a whole post written in detailed response to this hypocritical post and I just deleted it.

Here is the whole thing in a nutshell....

Saying it doesn't make it so and repeating your position doesn't stand as a rebuttal of a refuted point.

You are taking generally true statements and applying them in a manner that would, in fact, lead to the conclusion that God is the author of evil - period. A point which we have already argued without substantive rebuttal from you. As I said, merely repeating yourself doesn't count.

Making the claim that "Therefore God is the author of evil" is an "illogical leap having NOTHING to do with the proof set" doesn't make it so, Lon! Calling it a proof set doesn't make it an actually proof set, either. And if you think that you've presented anything here other than an emotionally charged rant then you need to rethink things and come back when you've calmed down enough to think clearly.

 

[Lon]

That which promotes life is the good and that which promotes death (i.e. the negation of life) is the evil but neither exists in the sense that good and evil are some sort of substances where they exist in the ontological sense of the word "exist".

I suppose you could say that good exists in the person of God and perhaps that evil exists in the person of Satan but even that seems like something of a figure of speech because whether a person is good or evil is determined by their actions (whether in thought, word or deed).

Is that what you're getting at?

These would be descriptors, adjectives. In such the state of being carries the adjective 'good.' With evil as a depravation, the thought is that the thing is described as an 'absence' of what is good, I believe I like your 'opposite' description, but to get to 'opposite,' privation is the vehicle, action, cause.

Lon,

I had a whole post written in detailed response to this hypocritical post and I just deleted it.

Here is the whole thing in a nutshell....

Saying it doesn't make it so and repeating your position doesn't stand as a rebuttal of a refuted point.

"Saying it, doesn't make it so." Okay, point? I mean why is this a standard line most specifically on TOL? Let me answer what seems most obvious: If I say something, it usually is a discussion and debate turn to ask for clarity, links, support, etc. Now if the idea is "I don't want to listen to you," the thought is simply 'resistant, not open to dialogue.' It depends on what you actually want from the conversation. Lately you have served me (and thank you) in threads. It has set a tone I expect (whether I'm presumptuous or not :idunno: ). The enjoyment of the thing is the impetus for the expectation. Let me say it straight: I genuinely enjoy you when you teach or listen. There is an adage I appreciate and 'try' to follow "Teach, learn, or get out of the way." Between us, I appreciate most when you teach or listen.

You are taking generally true statements and applying them in a manner that would, in fact, lead to the conclusion that God is the author of evil - period. A point which we have already argued without substantive rebuttal from you. As I said, merely repeating yourself doesn't count.

Okay, I'll be the learner for a moment. Initially, I believe you jumping to a conclusion, so I need the in-between to assess whether you are correct or not. How does it make God the author of evil? From my perspective, it is an adjective applied concerning a lack. A lack isn't an invention, but a disobedience. I've no idea how the first sin ever occurred ala/circuit Satan. I estimate freewill as yet God creating a switch that is problematic to 'creating a possibility of evil.' It leaves me holding the freewill theory suspect as it doesn't look right.

Making the claim that "Therefore God is the author of evil" is an "illogical leap having NOTHING to do with the proof set" doesn't make it so, Lon! Calling it a proof set doesn't make it an actually proof set, either. And if you think that you've presented anything here other than an emotionally charged rant then you need to rethink things and come back when you've calmed down enough to think clearly.

Right, it is my assessment of your position (at that point) in a speculation. I certainly was sloppy but it was an example to hopefully get you to weigh in on a proof set that you actually espouse. It seems odd to me, we all do this: Jump to where the other's position, from our perspective, logically seems at least, to point. In the future, I need to pay more attention to these, it is the other person trying to tell us 1) why their position and 2) problems with our position. It is a conversation indicator to date, I've missed with but a cursory glance.

Thank you for the conversation. Be blessed in Our Lord and Savior today, -Lon

 

[Clete]

These would be descriptors, adjectives. In such the state of being carries the adjective 'good.' With evil as a depravation, the thought is that the thing is described as an 'absence' of what is good, I believe I like your 'opposite' description, but to get to 'opposite,' privation is the vehicle, action, cause.

"Saying it, doesn't make it so." Okay, point? I mean why is this a standard line most specifically on TOL? Let me answer what seems most obvious: If I say something, it usually is a discussion and debate turn to ask for clarity, links, support, etc. Now if the idea is "I don't want to listen to you," the thought is simply 'resistant, not open to dialogue.' It depends on what you actually want from the conversation. Lately you have served me (and thank you) in threads. It has set a tone I expect (whether I'm presumptuous or not :idunno: ). The enjoyment of the thing is the impetus for the expectation. Let me say it straight: I genuinely enjoy you when you teach or listen. There is an adage I appreciate and 'try' to follow "Teach, learn, or get out of the way." Between us, I appreciate most when you teach or listen.

Okay, I'll be the learner for a moment. Initially, I believe you jumping to a conclusion, so I need the in-between to assess whether you are correct or not. How does it make God the author of evil? From my perspective, it is an adjective applied concerning a lack. A lack isn't an invention, but a disobedience. I've no idea how the first sin ever occurred ala/circuit Satan. I estimate freewill as yet God creating a switch that is problematic to 'creating a possibility of evil.' It leaves me holding the freewill theory suspect as it doesn't look right.

Right, it is my assessment of your position (at that point) in a speculation. I certainly was sloppy but it was an example to hopefully get you to weigh in on a proof set that you actually espouse. It seems odd to me, we all do this: Jump to where the other's position, from our perspective, logically seems at least, to point. In the future, I need to pay more attention to these, it is the other person trying to tell us 1) why their position and 2) problems with our position. It is a conversation indicator to date, I've missed with but a cursory glance.

Thank you for the conversation. Be blessed in Our Lord and Savior today, -Lon

Okay, so maybe it will help to focus the discussion by zeroing in on what we're really talking about here. I'll try to at least touch on the major points of disagreement. Let me know if I fail to do so.

What we are talking about is, more or less, the problem of evil and what you are trying to formulate is called a "theodicy" which is just the fancy term for a doctrine that deals with figuring out how evil exists in the world if God controls everything. (Incidentally, you would have hit the bull's eye but don't want to pull the trigger because you can't figure out how it would apply to Lucifer and are trepidatious about God "creating a possibility of evil".)

Such a discussion should start, it seems to me, with a clear understanding of what one means by "evil". This ground has already been covered but it stands repeating.....

That which is proper to life is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.

Here's my "theodicy"....

1. God is alive, personal, relational, loving and righteous.
2. God is not in exhaustive control of everything that happens.
3. Anything that can exist does not already do so in God in potentia.
4. God created both angels and mankind with the ability to choose.
5. God is not a magician (i.e. God's actions have real consequences that He cannot avoid).

1: All good theology begins with God's quality of character. Bearing foremost in mind God's literally and definitively perfect character should lead us well away from any doctrine that would even imply that God is the author of evil. Unfortunately, the majority of Christianity seems satisfied with giving God's moral character mere lip service so as to maintain their beloved god of Socrates and Plato who is absolutely immutable and therefore exhaustively in control of every event that happens, while simply ignoring the seemingly endless contradictions and/or blowing them off as "mystery" or "antinomy".

2. The bible simply does not teach that God controls everything that happens. Indeed, it teaches that God is not even aware of everything that happens (See Genesis 18:16-21). This point, by itself, resolves the so called "problem of evil". In fact, the very existence of the problem of evil is itself evidence that all forms of doctrine based on Augustine's theology proper are false.

3. God created creative beings who actually do create things that did not exist before. The cotton gin was not God's idea and He did not invent it, Eli Whitney did. God did not write "A Tale of Two Cities", Charles Dickens did. Likewise, God did not invent the practice of sacrificing children to Baal. In fact, we are told that such a practice never even entered God's mind (see Jeremiah 19:4-6). The same can, of course, be said of every other act of evil.

4. The ability to choose has a name, we call it "the will". Where there is no will, there can be no relationship. The primary purpose of our existence (i.e. the reason God created us) is to have loving relationships, both with God and with each other. This is true of both men and angels. Thus, both men and angels have the ability to choose because love, by definition, must be willful, meaning it must be chosen.

5. To choose there must be two or more alternatives from which to choose. Thus, in order to be able to choose to love God, one must have the ability to hate (i.e. to not love) God. This is the risk God took by creating creatures who could love Him. (I strongly recommend reading, "The God Who Risks" by John Sanders)

You can probably tell that I could have gone into much greater detail that I've done here (Sanders wrote an entire book on this subject) but this will have to do for now!

Clete

 

[Derf]

Good post, Clete! I have a couple of comments that aren't that crucial, but thought I'd verbalize them. No need to respond, as I don't want to interrupt your dialogue.

Okay, so maybe it will help to focus the discussion by zeroing in on what we're really talking about here. I'll try to at least touch on the major points of disagreement. Let me know if I fail to do so.

What we are talking about is, more or less, the problem of evil and what you are trying to formulate is called a "theodicy" which is just the fancy term for a doctrine that deals with figuring out how evil exists in the world if God controls everything. (Incidentally, you would have hit the bull's eye but don't want to pull the trigger because you can't figure out how it would apply to Lucifer and are trepidatious about God "creating a possibility of evil".)

Bingo!

Such a discussion should start, it seems to me, with a clear understanding of what one means by "evil". This ground has already been covered but it stands repeating.....

That which is proper to life is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.

I would add, "or tends toward the negation, opposition, or destruction".

Here's my "theodicy"....

1. God is alive, personal, relational, loving and righteous.
2. God is not in exhaustive control of everything that happens.
3. Anything that can exist does not already do so in God in potentia.
4. God created both angels and mankind with the ability to choose.
5. God is not a magician (i.e. God's actions have real consequences that He cannot avoid).

1: All good theology begins with God's quality of character. Bearing foremost in mind God's literally and definitively perfect character should lead us well away from any doctrine that would even imply that God is the author of evil. Unfortunately, the majority of Christianity seems satisfied with giving God's moral character mere lip service so as to maintain their beloved god of Socrates and Plato who is absolutely immutable and therefore exhaustively in control of every event that happens, while simply ignoring the seemingly endless contradictions and/or blowing them off as "mystery" or "antinomy".

Yep.

2. The bible simply does not teach that God controls everything that happens. Indeed, it teaches that God is not even aware of everything that happens (See Genesis 18:16-21).

I don't think this passage tells us God isn't aware, (it tells us He is aware, in fact, because "their cry had gone up to Him") but instead tells us He doesn't know how far they will go in their evil. It also explains that God's knowledge isn't intrinsic, but accumulates as knowledge becomes available.

This point, by itself, resolves the so called "problem of evil". In fact, the very existence of the problem of evil is itself evidence that all forms of doctrine based on Augustine's theology proper are false.

3. God created creative beings who actually do create things that did not exist before. The cotton gin was not God's idea and He did not invent it, Eli Whitney did. God did not write "A Tale of Two Cities", Charles Dickens did.

Well-stated!

Likewise, God did not invent the practice of sacrificing children to Baal. In fact, we are told that such a practice never even entered God's mind (see Jeremiah 19:4-6).

I think I have a better reading of that passage, since many have pointed out that God already knew about the practice and warned the Israelites not to do it in
Leviticus 18:21 KJV — And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

Instead, what I think didn't enter God's mind is to command His people to do such a thing.

The same can, of course, be said of every other act of evil.

Which still applies, maybe better, that it never enters God's mind to command evil practices, but not that God has never ever envisioned a single act of evil.

4. The ability to choose has a name, we call it "the will". Where there is no will, there can be no relationship. The primary purpose of our existence (i.e. the reason God created us) is to have loving relationships, both with God and with each other. This is true of both men and angels. Thus, both men and angels have the ability to choose because love, by definition, must be willful, meaning it must be chosen.

And because angels were not created in His image, there's no need for discussion about "imago dei".

5. To choose there must be two or more alternatives from which to choose. Thus, in order to be able to choose to love God, one must have the ability to hate (i.e. to not love) God. This is the risk God took by creating creatures who could love Him. (I strongly recommend reading, "The God Who Risks" by John Sanders)

You can probably tell that I could have gone into much greater detail that I've done here (Sanders wrote an entire book on this subject) but this will have to do for now!

Clete

 

[Clete]

I would add, "or tends toward the negation, opposition, or destruction".

Just as that which "tends toward" life is the good. In other words, this would be a redundancy. The point is that the basis for and premise of good is life and the basis for and premise of evil is death. As the scripture affirms...

Deuteronomy 30:15

“See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil,

I don't think this passage tells us God isn't aware, (it tells us He is aware, in fact, because "their cry had gone up to Him") but instead tells us He doesn't know how far they will go in their evil. It also explains that God's knowledge isn't intrinsic, but accumulates as knowledge becomes available.

Huh?

The passage states clearly that God is going down to confirm what He's been told. That makes no sense if God is aware of every event that happens.

Genesis 18:21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”​

I think I have a better reading of that passage, since many have pointed out that God already knew about the practice and warned the Israelites not to do it in
Leviticus 18:21 KJV — And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

Instead, what I think didn't enter God's mind is to command His people to do such a thing.

The point holds either way. One way or the other, Calvinism (Augustinianism) false to dust if God didn't sovereignly, infallibly and immutably ordain, predestine and actively cause such things to happen.

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)​

Which still applies, maybe better, that it never enters God's mind to command evil practices, but not that God has never ever envisioned a single act of evil.

The point isn't that He never envisioned evil but that He is not the source of it. He didn't invent the act of child sacrifice any more than He invented the digit calculator.

And because angels were not created in His image, there's no need for discussion about "imago dei".

Presumes facts not in evidence.

(Oh great! Now I have to go wash the lawyer taste out of my mouth! )

 

[Lon]

Okay, so maybe it will help to focus the discussion by zeroing in on what we're really talking about here. I'll try to at least touch on the major points of disagreement. Let me know if I fail to do so.

Thank you. Mulled this over last night rather than responding. Appreciate the insight.

What we are talking about is, more or less, the problem of evil and what you are trying to formulate is called a "theodicy" which is just the fancy term for a doctrine that deals with figuring out how evil exists in the world if God controls everything.

Freewill is generally hand in hand with theodicy in the sense that freewill is their answer to God justified. As Derf said, God, in freewill, isn't the Author of sin, but the Author of the switch (ability to do otherwise as the quintessential definition of freewill). An observation: Theodicy tends to tie its arguments (ala above in proposition) to only God interacting 'in' the universe He created in its propositions. I'm not sure if it then, is only relevant to discussion within the context of the universe then, on point. IOW, I don't believe Theodicy tried to answer the bigger picture of evil existing before there was a universe, and may be 'land-locked' for such discussion.

(Incidentally, you would have hit the bull's eye but don't want to pull the trigger because you can't figure out how it would apply to Lucifer and are trepidatious about God "creating a possibility of evil".)

True enough. Perhaps 'presumptuous' but with trepidation 1) to not make an assumption about God that isn't true, thus misapprehending His divine character and nature (reverence) and 2) that it will greatly affect much of my further theology, and if I'm wrong... As I've gotten older, I'm not so caught up on inexact theology, I want to hold it tentatively (once a theology learner, always a theology learner).

Such a discussion should start, it seems to me, with a clear understanding of what one means by "evil". This ground has already been covered but it stands repeating.....

That which is proper to life is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.

Where does your specific definition come from? I think it serves, but does there have to be 'life' for a thing against it to be evil? I'm trying to get us both on the same page with definitions for understanding and discussion. Example in mind: A person can destroy God's creation for no other purpose than to wreck. As I've read a bit more on theodicy, there is a broad and narrow definition with theodicy concerned with the former. The narrow is evil exceedingly by contrast.
Incidently, this is is Gottfried Leibniz, the guy who penned the term: Look at that wig!

Here's my "theodicy"....

1. God is alive, personal, relational, loving and righteous.
2. God is not in exhaustive control of everything that happens.
3. Anything that can exist does not already do so in God in potentia.
4. God created both angels and mankind with the ability to choose.
5. God is not a magician (i.e. God's actions have real consequences that He cannot avoid).

5) I'm not sure how it comes in as a component and would appreciate an expiation (and ty).

1: All good theology begins with God's quality of character. Bearing foremost in mind God's literally and definitively perfect character should lead us well away from any doctrine that would even imply that God is the author of evil.

Totally on page.

Unfortunately, the majority of Christianity seems satisfied with giving God's moral character mere lip service so as to maintain their beloved god of Socrates and Plato who is absolutely immutable and therefore exhaustively in control of every event that happens, while simply ignoring the seemingly endless contradictions and/or blowing them off as "mystery" or "antinomy".

Also agree but in empathy, is a trade-off for 'the same in the other position' (not arguing the merits thereof, just empathetic to anyone attempting to keep God's nature and actions holy.

2. The bible simply does not teach that God controls everything that happens.

When you read the verses, especially John 15:5 Colossians 1:16-20, Philippians 2:13, Acts 17:28 how do you reconcile?
Intuitively, we aren't God. This alone has me on page with your proposition in that we are 'entities' and as such are capable. I believe, at this venture, I'm on page with the general overarching thought that God made us somewhat 'free' but free has all kinds of broad-stroke definitions that get in the way imho, of what you are actually driving at: A man with a culpable will. I told Derf, I don't think it is a 'switch' God made man with but with you 'an ability' however with no suggestion of 'to do otherwise' implicit in the gift. IOW, the way you get to a theodicy that truly has God separate from sin, is making a wrench, not to be used as a hammer. For me then, the ascent is rather on 'ability' (analogy in a moment).
Your use, if I assess correctly, has ability and free used interchangeably. I believe they are not the same thing (analogy to follow).

Simply and briefly: Freewill ever has language that at least implies God 'made a wrench that carried the implicit idea that it be used as a hammer, even though that'd break it. At this venture in conversation (couple of times this week in conversation with you), I don't believe freewill theists intend to imply God made a wrench with choice, but 'ability' without conflating the two as inseparable. It seems to me, at this venture, that 'ability' doesn't make a thing so. Some yet might think that making me a separate entity (not free but with free qualities), led to sin thereby God is yet the Maker of the switch. With Derf, I use rather the analogy of putting a paperclip in an electric socket with 'thou shalt not' as akin to 'Do not eat of the tree or you shall die.' By analogy, the tree of the knowledge of Good an Evil is like the fuse box in creation. "Don't touch it. Danger!" Crossing wires is the 'evil' akin to eating of the tree. There is no switch, nor intent by God that man should ever touch wires that are good and functioning 'the way they are.' Thus a wrench, made to turn things, not beat them. A set of wires, not to be crossed: dangerous. And a tree not to be eaten. It rather than 'ability to do otherwise' is just 'ability' in created intent. God then doesn't have to make man with 'an ability to do otherwise' but rather makes man with hands that 'can' change wires, but without intent that He should do so. Freewill theism has God 'necessarily' having to create man 'to do otherwise' as an option. I don't believe evil needs that switch. Rather it seems at this venture, that simply 'ability' is how man accomplished sin, like 'don't use that wrench' or 'don't cross those wires' or 'don't eat of that tree.'

Satan may have been given more instruction and responsiblity than Adam and Eve. He may have been made as the good and evil electrician, according to illustration. We are not with but speculation, however such in analogy allows for the fall, completely without God's intent. Derf has pretty much said "no, I'll stick with Freewill paradigms" at this venture. As such, perhaps freewill theism is wholesale and cannot entertain the separation of 'abilty' from 'to do otherwise' as the object, point, purpose of man's misuse. :idunno:

Indeed, it teaches that God is not even aware of everything that happens (See Genesis 18:16-21). This point, by itself, resolves the so called "problem of evil". In fact, the very existence of the problem of evil is itself evidence that all forms of doctrine based on Augustine's theology proper are false.

The Open paradigm is a whole other can of worms. I don't believe it essential to the meaning of conversation because there are many many freewill theists vs Open vs Omni theology positions. I don't think this particular disagreement of much consequence other than illustration to a point you are making, that God 'doesn't control everything.'

3. God created creative beings who actually do create things that did not exist before. The cotton gin was not God's idea and He did not invent it, Eli Whitney did. God did not write "A Tale of Two Cities", Charles Dickens did. Likewise, God did not invent the practice of sacrificing children to Baal. In fact, we are told that such a practice never even entered God's mind (see Jeremiah 19:4-6). The same can, of course, be said of every other act of evil.

Let me ask a question (just because it illustrates a need to further investigate both of our assumptions in opposition).
There are only so many spices in the world. Do you believe there is a flavor combination that would catch God unaware?

I ask simply because of this: our ability to know is limited and we argue from that limitation. We have plenty left to learn, but is there anything in the universe God did not know when He knows the content of every element and its interaction?

Tale of Two Cities: Not new, but the 'arrangement' of the story wasn't done before. In what way would we say we'd never seen anything in Tale of Two Cities before? Isn't rather the perspective that we are talking about in story? Movies are similar. It isn't that I'd never seen anything in the movie before, it is rather that the arrangement of very familiar things in a different manner, that captures us. Solomon penned 'there is nothing new under the sun' and thus by the presentation has given an alternate in which to weigh 'did not exist before.' The resistance then, to the Open paradigm isn't just given because of entrenching, but upon presuppositions as the verses given above and others like Solomon's statement that 'there is nothing new under the sun.' In short 'you say "new" I say "different" for the contrast, not to reject the other, but to ensure a holistic theology that meets the opposition to our formulations. I'm yet fairly certain it isn't a lynch pin for freewill discussion. It certainly is closely tied more closely to an Open Theists theology and premise.

4. The ability to choose has a name, we call it "the will". Where there is no will, there can be no relationship. The primary purpose of our existence (i.e. the reason God created us) is to have loving relationships, both with God and with each other. This is true of both men and angels. Thus, both men and angels have the ability to choose because love, by definition, must be willful, meaning it must be chosen.

Classic definition? Will: Desire, inclination, choice. When AMR and Freewill theists used to debate this on TOL, AMR used 'inclination' as opposed to 'free.' I believe I'd augment will with "the impetus of a person to do an action." Matthew 8: 1-3 "Master, if you are willing, you can cleanse me...." Point: It isn't just 'ability to choose' but also 'the impetus for doing the ability.' Would you say that will 'is' or is driven by, a valuation? Asking another way: is will the 'ability' or the impetus 'for' the ability? It seems will is the 'impetus' for an ability.

5. To choose there must be two or more alternatives from which to choose. Thus, in order to be able to choose to love God, one must have the ability to hate (i.e. to not love) God. This is the risk God took by creating creatures who could love Him. (I strongly recommend reading, "The God Who Risks" by John Sanders)

I'm unsure Sander's theory is sound. To choose is fine. Love carries two items necessary for it's description: both as a condition (no action) and then a result of the action. Sanders and others insist that there be an alternative for love 1) to exist and also 2) as an action. Here is the problem: the definition of love itself MUST thereby contain evil/not-love to even ascertain the defintion! It means you cannot have an adequate definition of love without 'not love' as part of the definition in comparison. We don't do this with many things. For instance, I don't describe a diamond in a dictionary by describing what it isn't. I don't look up in a dictionary 'male' only to read "not female.' While the constrast can help one grasp more fully what the object is not, the contrast doesn't define the thing and this is what this line of reasoning is offering, yea, even demanding. The dictionaries of today are horrible for defining love. You, however, have something akin to my working definition: Love is being dedicated to another's highest good. Dedication is the impetus, the valuation is 'another's good.'

It'd makes more sense to say "choice to do otherwise" is a meaningful contrast toward the difference between love and something else" rather than say it is needful for Love's definition. "To do otherwise" hasn't been part of any freewill theists proferred definition of love to date.
I'll extend the offer here if you have a working definition but it seems it must just be a contrast like "not female" which helps define male, but isn't necessary to grasp 'male.' Freewill theists insist 'to do otherwise' but I yet see it as superflous to Love's description.

You can probably tell that I could have gone into much greater detail that I've done here (Sanders wrote an entire book on this subject) but this will have to do for now!

Clete

Thank you Clete. None of my comments are dismissive, they are rather wrestling with the content of your post and I appreciate the service. I believe these worth our efforts, if not to convince the other, at least to bring needed depth for our own positions and the needed walk in the other's shoes upon the difference. Thank you for that service. In Him -Lon

 

[Lon]

Just as that which "tends toward" life is the good. In other words, this would be a redundancy. The point is that the basis for and premise of good is life and the basis for and premise of evil is death. As the scripture affirms...

Deuteronomy 30:15

“See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil,


Huh?

The passage states clearly that God is going down to confirm what He's been told. That makes no sense if God is aware of every event that happens.

Genesis 18:21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”​

A disagreement among Open Theists:
In Open Theism two and three (20 years ago ), I found some Open Theists who believe 'God knows all things knowable' to logically include the whole of 'knowable' truth and happenings and yet, I've come across this verse in Genesis 18, unexpected grapes Isaiah 5 (Isaiah's song), and "Adam where art thou? Genesis 3:9" as evidence God doesn't know everything and has to investigate in some or most of other Open Theist's theology.

It forces either an anthropomorphism such as "I know, but want to let you know I'm going there" or this is simply a messenger of God and 'God' in the sense of representation, like Moses. Such that we are looking at one who is an emissary standing in God's place, not all knowing.
Or a position of God 'not knowing all things knowable' but rather 'knows all things investigated' only what He wants to know. This coming from a different Open position: a tangible disagreement within the Open community.

Some few Open Theists would posit "God knows all things knowable."
Other Open Theists believe "God is not omniscient, but can know anything He wants to know."


Summation: make it difficult at times, to follow Open Theism logically. This is quite a large in-house disagreement.

 

[Derf]

A disagreement among Open Theists:
In Open Theism two and three (20 years ago ), I found some Open Theists who believe 'God knows all things knowable' to logically include the whole of 'knowable' truth and happenings and yet, I've come across this verse in Genesis 18, unexpected grapes Isaiah 5 (Isaiah's song), and "Adam where art thou? Genesis 3:9" as evidence God doesn't know everything and has to investigate in some or most of other Open Theist's theology.

It forces either an anthropomorphism such as "I know, but want to let you know I'm going there" or this is simply a messenger of God and 'God' in the sense of representation, like Moses. Such that we are looking at one who is an emissary standing in God's place, not all knowing.
Or a position of God 'not knowing all things knowable' but rather 'knows all things investigated' only what He wants to know. This coming from a different Open position: a tangible disagreement within the Open community.

Some few Open Theists would posit "God knows all things knowable."
Other Open Theists believe "God is not omniscient, but can know anything He wants to know."


Summation: make it difficult at times, to follow Open Theism logically. This is quite a large in-house disagreement.

I think I would count myself in the camp of "God knows all things knowable." But I temper it with the idea that God observes things that happen in order to know them. He knows David's thoughts (words before they are on his tongue) because He searches David's heart, not because He just intrinsically knows those things, and certainly not because those thoughts were floating around for all eternity.

I don't discount the possibility that God doesn't search the heart of everybody (but only those who are His children/His servants/His elect/His instruments), but I think if He is able and ready to hear when someone cries out to Him for mercy, He must also hear the less desirable cries and thoughts. I could be wrong. Since angels seem to bring Him the prayers of saints to process in some way, perhaps He receives information about world events that way. I tend to see those verses that speak that way as the more allegorical, because it otherwise makes God more distant from His creation.

 

[Derf]

I mainly want to address those parts where you referred to me, plus one other.

Freewill is generally hand in hand with theodicy in the sense that freewill is their answer to God justified. As Derf said, God, in freewill, isn't the Author of sin, but the Author of the switch (ability to do otherwise as the quintessential definition of freewill).

To clarify, I acquiesced to the switch language, but only that mankind went from innocence to guilt with the eating of the tree.

I told Derf, I don't think it is a 'switch' God made man with but with you 'an ability' however with no suggestion of 'to do otherwise' implicit in the gift.

Yet, the suggestion was there before Satan's interaction:
[Gen 2:16 KJV] And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
[Gen 2:17 KJV] But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The switch you speak of is explicit, not just suggested. I'm not so sure it's something that is ever turned off, even in eternity, only brought under control.

When you read the verses, especially John 15:5 Colossians 1:16-20, Philippians 2:13, Acts 17:28 how do you reconcile?

What is it that you think needs to be reconciled? God controls all things CAN'T mean that God causes all things including sin. But it CAN mean that when someone sins, God takes the appropriate countermeasures so that His creation is not fully destroyed. Jesus saying His disciples can do nothing without Him CAN'T mean they cannot sin without Him directing them to. But it CAN mean that they can't do all the things He wants them to do without Him, without His teaching, without His power.

With Derf, I use rather the analogy of putting a paperclip in an electric socket with 'thou shalt not' as akin to 'Do not eat of the tree or you shall die.' By analogy, the tree of the knowledge of Good an Evil is like the fuse box in creation. "Don't touch it. Danger!" Crossing wires is the 'evil' akin to eating of the tree. There is no switch, nor intent by God that man should ever touch wires that are good and functioning 'the way they are.' Thus a wrench, made to turn things, not beat them. A set of wires, not to be crossed: dangerous. And a tree not to be eaten. It rather than 'ability to do otherwise' is just 'ability' in created intent. God then doesn't have to make man with 'an ability to do otherwise' but rather makes man with hands that 'can' change wires, but without intent that He should do so.

You speak out of both sides of your mouth, Lon. You're describing open theism...that man had the capability to use the wrench as a hammer from the start. That IS the "ability to do otherwise". All settled theists eventually use open-theism concepts to describe their theodicy.

 

[Clete]

Thank you. Mulled this over last night rather than responding. Appreciate the insight.

Okay, so there's no way I can respond to all of your post. I'd be here till Christmas 2026!

Freewill is generally hand in hand with theodicy in the sense that freewill is their answer to God justified. As Derf said, God, in freewill, isn't the Author of sin, but the Author of the switch (ability to do otherwise as the quintessential definition of freewill). An observation: Theodicy tends to tie its arguments (ala above in proposition) to only God interacting 'in' the universe He created in its propositions. I'm not sure if it then, is only relevant to discussion within the context of the universe then, on point. IOW, I don't believe Theodicy tried to answer the bigger picture of evil existing before there was a universe, and may be 'land-locked' for such discussion.

There are several theodicies that people have formulated. They seem to all mention free will but any of them produced by Catholics or Calvinists or Methodists universally give mere lip service to free will and leave flagrant contradictions wide open and intentionally unresolved. In short, the various attempts to account for the existence of evil make no attempt to do so in a rationally coherent manner. It's just dogma.

Where does your specific definition come from?

My mind.

Do you mean, where did I learn it? What difference does that make? It wasn't from a single source. Besides, did I not quote scripture that draws the exact same parallel?

I think it serves, but does there have to be 'life' for a thing against it to be evil?

God is life, Lon. There has never been a time when God did not exist and thus there has never been a time when life did not exist. God was good before He created the universe, right?

When you read the verses, especially John 15:5 Colossians 1:16-20, Philippians 2:13, Acts 17:28 how do you reconcile?

John 15:5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.​

Jesus isn't teaching that you can't do anything at all whatsoever. Jesus isn't teaching that "Without Me you can't murder your neighbor's grandmother with a pare of scissors." (Hehe! Sorry to be so graphic there! I watched a show on Investigation Discovery where some guy did that!)

Also, Christ's statement is a bit of hyperbole in the same sense that "all good things comes from above" is so. The idea isn't to communicate control but of humility toward God who has granted us life and thereby the opportunity to do rightly.

Colossians1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.​

​

19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.​

​

The short answer here is that I don't read the bible as though I'm an attorney reading paperwork from a legal proceeding. As such, I do not take general statements and attempt to apply them to every specific.

Philippians 2:13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.​

​

Well, same answer as on the last passage but also the dispensational context is important here. We are identified in Christ, indeed we have been crucified in Christ and it no longer we who live but Christ who lives His life through us BY FAITH! (Galatians 2:20) It is that "BY FAITH" part that is the key. There is clearly supernatural/spiritual stuff going on in the life of a believer but it isn't at all the same as being hung on strings like puppets.

Acts 17:28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’​

​

Once again, its about not taking general statements too far and applying in a manner that is not intended. Generally speaking, it is quite true that God is everywhere and is as close to us as breathing. It is not necessary to point out every possible exception when making such statements. Again, we are not lawyers reading a legal contract here where such specificity is needed but rather we are reading a history book where someone is attempting to convey big ideas in an understandable way.

Intuitively, we aren't God. This alone has me on page with your proposition in that we are 'entities' and as such are capable. I believe, at this venture, I'm on page with the general overarching thought that God made us somewhat 'free' but free has all kinds of broad-stroke definitions that get in the way imho, of what you are actually driving at: A man with a culpable will. I told Derf, I don't think it is a 'switch' God made man with but with you 'an ability' however with no suggestion of 'to do otherwise' implicit in the gift. IOW, the way you get to a theodicy that truly has God separate from sin, is making a wrench, not to be used as a hammer. For me then, the ascent is rather on 'ability' (analogy in a moment).
Your use, if I assess correctly, has ability and free used interchangeably. I believe they are not the same thing (analogy to follow).

Simply and briefly: Freewill ever has language that at least implies God 'made a wrench that carried the implicit idea that it be used as a hammer, even though that'd break it. At this venture in conversation (couple of times this week in conversation with you), I don't believe freewill theists intend to imply God made a wrench with choice, but 'ability' without conflating the two as inseparable. It seems to me, at this venture, that 'ability' doesn't make a thing so. Some yet might think that making me a separate entity (not free but with free qualities), led to sin thereby God is yet the Maker of the switch. With Derf, I use rather the analogy of putting a paperclip in an electric socket with 'thou shalt not' as akin to 'Do not eat of the tree or you shall die.' By analogy, the tree of the knowledge of Good an Evil is like the fuse box in creation. "Don't touch it. Danger!" Crossing wires is the 'evil' akin to eating of the tree. There is no switch, nor intent by God that man should ever touch wires that are good and functioning 'the way they are.' Thus a wrench, made to turn things, not beat them. A set of wires, not to be crossed: dangerous. And a tree not to be eaten. It rather than 'ability to do otherwise' is just 'ability' in created intent. God then doesn't have to make man with 'an ability to do otherwise' but rather makes man with hands that 'can' change wires, but without intent that He should do so. Freewill theism has God 'necessarily' having to create man 'to do otherwise' as an option. I don't believe evil needs that switch. Rather it seems at this venture, that simply 'ability' is how man accomplished sin, like 'don't use that wrench' or 'don't cross those wires' or 'don't eat of that tree.'

Satan may have been given more instruction and responsiblity than Adam and Eve. He may have been made as the good and evil electrician, according to illustration. We are not with but speculation, however such in analogy allows for the fall, completely without God's intent. Derf has pretty much said "no, I'll stick with Freewill paradigms" at this venture. As such, perhaps freewill theism is wholesale and cannot entertain the separation of 'abilty' from 'to do otherwise' as the object, point, purpose of man's misuse. :idunno:

You definitely need to drop these analogies. They don't make any sense. I read this three times and it just does not work. You are overthinking it by a mile.

It's not complicated at all. The concept of choice presupposes that there are alternatives to choose from. The reason that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil existed was to provide an alternative to God. But the existence of alternatives from which to choose is only meaningful if the one who chooses could have chosen otherwise. Which is to say that his choice was not determined by someone or something other than himself; that his ability to choose was real and that it was really his.

There's insufficient time to get detailed here but this actually gets to what it means to be you. Is there a such thing as you? Does you exist? What does it mean to be you? Cogito Ergo Sum - right?! Do you think? It is YOU doing the thinking?

The degree to which you minimize or downgrade the idea that we have free will, is the degree to which your answer to such questions is, "No".

Let me ask a question (just because it illustrates a need to further investigate both of our assumptions in opposition).
There are only so many spices in the world. Do you believe there is a flavor combination that would catch God unaware?

I have no reason to believe that God has spent the time to discover every combination of spices. (There are, by the way, a literally infinite number of such combinations.) And so, yeah, its possible that someone might produce a mixture that God had never considered. Not that it would "catch Him unaware" which is a phrase that seems rather loaded with the implication that God would somehow break if someone came up with something that was new to God.

I ask simply because of this: our ability to know is limited and we argue from that limitation.

God's ability to know is also limited, although not in regard to something as inanimate as spices. God cannot know the unknowable any more than we can. There is far less that is unknowable to God than is unknowable for us but that's not quite the point. The point is that God does not know everything as Plato believed.

We have plenty left to learn, but is there anything in the universe God did not know when He knows the content of every element and its interaction?

I do not understand people's felt need to overstate everything when applied to God. Why is it so hard to believe that God is a person who is not so radically different from us that we cannot related to Him. We have been created for the express purpose of have a relationship with God but everyone seems to be afraid that accepting Him as a person who we can actually do that with somehow demotes Him from Godhood.

It simply is not necessary to believe that God has sat down and considered and remembers and keeps track of every conceivable chemical reaction, mixture of spices and every other mundane triviality that has, does or might ever exist.

Tale of Two Cities: Not new, but the 'arrangement' of the story wasn't done before. In what way would we say we'd never seen anything in Tale of Two Cities before?

You will not proceed any further in your understanding of either God or the scriptures unless or until you stop thinking like a paralegal doing research for a legal proceeding.

Besides, how is this question even relevant? Your point is, in essence, "There's nothing new under the Sun.", so what? That biblical saying and the fact that Charles Dickens didn't invent the English language doesn't mean that his books weren't original creations of his own making. Does the painter not create art because he wasn't the one who invented paint? Shall we not give Bach credit for his magnificent musical creations because he did not invent music?

Classic definition? Will: Desire, inclination, choice. When AMR and Freewill theists used to debate this on TOL, AMR used 'inclination' as opposed to 'free.' I believe I'd augment will with "the impetus of a person to do an action." Matthew 8: 1-3 "Master, if you are willing, you can cleanse me...." Point: It isn't just 'ability to choose' but also 'the impetus for doing the ability.' Would you say that will 'is' or is driven by, a valuation? Asking another way: is will the 'ability' or the impetus 'for' the ability? It seems will is the 'impetus' for an ability.

The will may include aspects other than the ability to do otherwise but that would only serve to muddy the water. The point is that the ability to do otherwise is a necessary condition. Put another way, the concept of "the will" presupposes the ability to do or to do otherwise (i.e. to choose). If you want to add the concept of desire then you are free to do so - or not.

I'm unsure Sander's theory is sound. To choose is fine. Love carries two items necessary for it's description: both as a condition (no action) and then a result of the action. Sanders and others insist that there be an alternative for love 1) to exist and also 2) as an action. Here is the problem: the definition of love itself MUST thereby contain evil/not-love to even ascertain the defintion!

Umm, what?

Your sentence stucture needs work. I can't follow this.

It means you cannot have an adequate definition of love without 'not love' as part of the definition in comparison.

Yes you can! This is like saying that you can't define light without including darkness in the definition. Define love and then it's negation is the definition of hate, not the other way around.

It'd makes more sense to say "choice to do otherwise" is a meaningful contrast toward the difference between love and something else" rather than say it is needful for Love's definition. "To do otherwise" hasn't been part of any freewill theists preferred definition of love to date.

You are focusing too closely on the word "definition". When I use the phrase "by definition" I am not saying that I have just offered a definition but that I am making an argument that is based on the term's definition. It is specifically called a "by definition argument". The point isn't to have offered a concise definition of the term but to have engaged the term's definition in order to make the argument.

So, I am not saying that the ability to choose is required to be mentioned in a formal definition of the term "love". I am saying that the concept of love presupposes the ability to choose, that the ability to choose is a necessary condition for love to happen. This is true of ALL MORAL issues. If an action is not chosen then the act is no more moral that is a clock's reading of noon.

If you need one, a good definition of love, at least in the context of this discussion, would be...

Love: to willfully act in the best interest of another

Thank you Clete. None of my comments are dismissive, they are rather wrestling with the content of your post and I appreciate the service. I believe these worth our efforts, if not to convince the other, at least to bring needed depth for our own positions and the needed walk in the other's shoes upon the difference. Thank you for that service. In Him -Lon

 

[Clete]

A disagreement among Open Theists:
In Open Theism two and three (20 years ago ), I found some Open Theists who believe 'God knows all things knowable' to logically include the whole of 'knowable' truth and happenings and yet, I've come across this verse in Genesis 18, unexpected grapes Isaiah 5 (Isaiah's song), and "Adam where art thou? Genesis 3:9" as evidence God doesn't know everything and has to investigate in some or most of other Open Theist's theology.

It forces either an anthropomorphism such as "I know, but want to let you know I'm going there" or this is simply a messenger of God and 'God' in the sense of representation, like Moses. Such that we are looking at one who is an emissary standing in God's place, not all knowing.
Or a position of God 'not knowing all things knowable' but rather 'knows all things investigated' only what He wants to know. This coming from a different Open position: a tangible disagreement within the Open community.

Some few Open Theists would posit "God knows all things knowable."
Other Open Theists believe "God is not omniscient, but can know anything He wants to know."


Summation: make it difficult at times, to follow Open Theism logically. This is quite a large in-house disagreement.

There are such variations in every school of thought whether theological or otherwise. It doesn't make it that hard to follow logically. You just have to pay attention to who you're reading and understand why he's saying what he's saying.

I submit that those open theists who disagree with me and think that God knows absolutely everything there is to know that is knowable, cannot support that position biblically but are just clinging to the more traditional concepts of omniscience that they aren't yet willing to let go of.

Genesis 18:21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”​

 

[Right Divider]

Yes you can! This is like saying that you can't define light without including darkness in the definition. Define love and then it's negation is the definition of hate, not the other way around.

This reminds me very much of a time that I heard the lawyer Alan Dershowitz discussing some moral point. He made the following ridiculous statement:

"I don't know what's right, but I know what's wrong".​

So laughably illogical and exactly like you're talking about. Apparently, he had no idea that the very definition of "wrong" is "not right".

 

[Derf]

This reminds me very much of a time that I heard the lawyer Alan Dershowitz discussing some moral point. He made the following ridiculous statement:

"I don't know what's right, but I know what's wrong".​

So laughably illogical and exactly like you're talking about. Apparently, he had no idea that the very definition of "wrong" is "not right".

He might mean something like when Adam was brought all rhe animals to name, the names were from him, and therefore none were wrong. God hadn't defined a wrong name for any animals, nor would He counteract Adam's names--it was Adam's jurisdiction as God had put them under his authority. But if Adam was supposed to name the animals and decided not to, that might be considered wrong.

The freedoms God gives us to do right are multiple.

 

[Lon]

Okay, so there's no way I can respond to all of your post. I'd be here till Christmas 2026!


There are several theodicies that people have formulated. They seem to all mention free will but any of them produced by Catholics or Calvinists or Methodists universally give mere lip service to free will and leave flagrant contradictions wide open and intentionally unresolved. In short, the various attempts to account for the existence of evil make no attempt to do so in a rationally coherent manner. It's just dogma.


My mind.

Do you mean, where did I learn it? What difference does that make? It wasn't from a single source. Besides, did I not quote scripture that draws the exact same parallel?

It was to be able to look it up. I'll have to check if your mind is loaned to my local library :X

God is life, Lon. There has never been a time when God did not exist and thus there has never been a time when life did not exist. God was good before He created the universe, right?

Yes, but for the need of clarity.

John 15:5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.​

Jesus isn't teaching that you can't do anything at all whatsoever. Jesus isn't teaching that "Without Me you can't murder your neighbor's grandmother with a pare of scissors." (Hehe! Sorry to be so graphic there! I watched a show on Investigation Discovery where some guy did that!)

You definitely need to drop these analogies. They don't make any sense. I read this three times and it just does not work. You are overthinking it by a mile.

I don't see them as analogy?

It's not complicated at all.

It'll take much longer conversation nevertheless. We disagree out of the gate and I believe upon a 'plain reading' of the text.

The concept of choice presupposes that there are alternatives to choose from. The reason that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil existed was to provide an alternative to God.

That is the speculation. Such a conversation would take us well into this Spring I'd expect.

But the existence of alternatives from which to choose is only meaningful if the one who chooses could have chosen otherwise. Which is to say that his choice was not determined by someone or something other than himself; that his ability to choose was real and that it was really his.

There's insufficient time to get detailed here but this actually gets to what it means to be you. Is there a such thing as you? Does you exist? What does it mean to be you? Cogito Ergo Sum - right?! Do you think? It is YOU doing the thinking?

Right, I think therefore I am. The philosophy of self-existence.

The degree to which you minimize or downgrade the idea that we have free will, is the degree to which your answer to such questions is, "No".

Agree.

I have no reason to believe that God has spent the time to discover every combination of spices. (There are, by the way, a literally infinite number of such combinations.)

I haven't mixed all of them, but most of them. If I 'can' God does. 1) Such demonstrably is a simple way of proposing that God knows implicitly 'how' our universe works as the Author and it is wholly reasonable that 2) such is not just 'knowable' but extrapolated fairly clearly it is no stretch: Already known. It doesn't need an appeal to mystery nor unknown to grasp this by proposition. I'd suggest it alone, is reason enough, why a good many Open Theists reject "God only knows what He wants to know" on point. It is much bigger and theology informing and does indeed present complications that are far reaching with whom I or another is talking. One who believes God doesn't know everything is a much different conversation than one that says 'all things knowable' because the extent of knowledge allows for conversation in other, without proofs.
There are Open Theists that read the verses I've given, at face value as I do, for instance.

I do not understand people's felt need to overstate everything when applied to God. Why is it so hard to believe that God is a person who is not so radically different from us that we cannot related to Him. We have been created for the express purpose of have a relationship with God but everyone seems to be afraid that accepting Him as a person who we can actually do that with somehow demotes Him from Godhood.

Its huge. God has transcendent traits that are not communicable with man. It very much is the difference and a huge argument point between Christianity proper and Mormons, now with Open Theists as well. About half of His traits given in the second link, you will disagree with, but for the half that you do, it is important regarding reverence.

It simply is not necessary to believe that God has sat down and considered and remembers and keeps track of every conceivable chemical reaction, mixture of spices and every other mundane triviality that has, does or might ever exist.

He doesn't. All thing originate from Him in the first place. He doesn't have a little brain as symbolism goes; all things that exist, exist from that mind. We are the 'product' of His conception so His thoughts are immense, as immense as the universe. Isaiah 55:9

You will not proceed any further in your understanding of either God or the scriptures unless or until you stop thinking like a paralegal doing research for a legal proceeding.

It is a declaration anyway.

Besides, how is this question even relevant? Your point is, in essence, "There's nothing new under the Sun.", so what? That biblical saying and the fact that Charles Dickens didn't invent the English language doesn't mean that his books weren't original creations of his own making. Does the painter not create art because he wasn't the one who invented paint? Shall we not give Bach credit for his magnificent musical creations because he did not invent music?

Well, let us go back to the recipe analogy. It is simple enough, because we aren't talking about all that many combinations. Ten thousand perhaps?? Do you take Luke 12:7 figuratively too? I'll keep my paralegal research going for now.

The will may include aspects other than the ability to do otherwise but that would only serve to muddy the water.

I'm okay with muddy water because it answers the question 'can we define love, without a contrast?' I believe we must because a contrast isn't defined by its contrast (Love) either. It becomes circular reasoning. In a like manner, will has to be conceived upon the essence of what it is and is not and I tend to be dedicated to a paralegal degree to ascertain appropriate definitions. Reason? Half or more of all TOL debates might likely end if we are most specific with what we mean and do not mean. The other half almost always is arguing about the difference.

The point is that the ability to do otherwise is a necessary condition. Put another way, the concept of "the will" presupposes the ability to do or to do otherwise (i.e. to choose). If you want to add the concept of desire then you are free to do so - or not.

I appreciate that, on point. There are not many of us who eschew freewill theology. I do so, not with any preconception other than it doesn't look right. It yet has God doing something that seems to 'encourage' disobedience. Indeed, that is Sanders' premise in "The God Who Risks," that God put such there with a purpose, as a risk He was willing to take.

Your embrace of Sanders makes a different conversation between you and I, than my conversation with many other Open Theists who disagree up front with him.

This all to say, I believe we'd better start Open Theism part 4 in the archives, because this is going to take a year!

Umm, what?

Your sentence stucture needs work. I can't follow this.

Point taken. Simply: Sanders' definition relies on 'opposite' to conceive of love. That is, he and you place 'not love' in your contextual definition. Generally, definitions are inexact, obscured when its opposite is the impetus of the definition. In short: Freewill theism is problematic with defining love as 'ability to do otherwise' (not-love). It is circular in definition, understanding, and reasoning.
Next: it is the reason I hold 'ability to do otherwise' suspect. Love is 'dedicated to another's highest good.' In my definition, there is no 'Love is that which does not choose to not love by necessity.'

 

[Lon]

This reminds me very much of a time that I heard the lawyer Alan Dershowitz discussing some moral point. He made the following ridiculous statement:

"I don't know what's right, but I know what's wrong".​

So laughably illogical and exactly like you're talking about. Apparently, he had no idea that the very definition of "wrong" is "not right".

One, in definition, necessarily has to not have a contrast, however. It is a must, THEN you can use the definition to discuss the other by opposite, meaning, not before. I have to be able to have a concept of one without the other, to escape circular reasoning:

When I was six, my grandpa was buying Ex-lax. I asked him why he was buying it:
"So I can go."
"Why do you want to go?"
"I don't want to go, I have to go."
"Then why don't you just go?"
"Because I can't!"
"Then why do you want to?"
"Because I have to go!"
"Then why don't you just go?"
"Because I can't!" Then he broke out into laughter and I didn't know the answer until my first obstructed bowel movement much later on in life.

 

[Right Divider]

One, in definition, necessarily has to not have a contrast, however.

One is the opposite of the other, and is based on it.
We cannot know what's wrong until we know what's right.
AD was basically trying to put down the Christian idea of what is right.

 

[Clete]

It was to be able to look it up. I'll have to check if your mind is loaned to my local library :X

Yes, but for the need of clarity.



I don't see them as analogy?

It'll take much longer conversation nevertheless. We disagree out of the gate and I believe upon a 'plain reading' of the text.


That is the speculation. Such a conversation would take us well into this Spring I'd expect.


Right, I think therefore I am. The philosophy of self-existence.

Agree.

I haven't mixed all of them, but most of them. If I 'can' God does. 1) Such demonstrably is a simple way of proposing that God knows implicitly 'how' our universe works as the Author and it is wholly reasonable that 2) such is not just 'knowable' but extrapolated fairly clearly it is no stretch: Already known. It doesn't need an appeal to mystery nor unknown to grasp this by proposition. I'd suggest it alone, is reason enough, why a good many Open Theists reject "God only knows what He wants to know" on point. It is much bigger and theology informing and does indeed present complications that are far reaching with whom I or another is talking. One who believes God doesn't know everything is a much different conversation than one that says 'all things knowable' because the extent of knowledge allows for conversation in other, without proofs.
There are Open Theists that read the verses I've given, at face value as I do, for instance.


Its huge. God has transcendent traits that are not communicable with man. It very much is the difference and a huge argument point between Christianity proper and Mormons, now with Open Theists as well. About half of His traits given in the second link, you will disagree with, but for the half that you do, it is important regarding reverence.

He doesn't. All thing originate from Him in the first place. He doesn't have a little brain as symbolism goes; all things that exist, exist from that mind. We are the 'product' of His conception so His thoughts are immense, as immense as the universe. Isaiah 55:9

It is a declaration anyway.

Well, let us go back to the recipe analogy. It is simple enough, because we aren't talking about all that many combinations. Ten thousand perhaps?? Do you take Luke 12:7 figuratively too? I'll keep my paralegal research going for now.

I'm okay with muddy water because it answers the question 'can we define love, without a contrast?' I believe we must because a contrast isn't defined by its contrast (Love) either. It becomes circular reasoning. In a like manner, will has to be conceived upon the essence of what it is and is not and I tend to be dedicated to a paralegal degree to ascertain appropriate definitions. Reason? Half or more of all TOL debates might likely end if we are most specific with what we mean and do not mean. The other half almost always is arguing about the difference.


I appreciate that, on point. There are not many of us who eschew freewill theology. I do so, not with any preconception other than it doesn't look right. It yet has God doing something that seems to 'encourage' disobedience. Indeed, that is Sanders' premise in "The God Who Risks," that God put such there with a purpose, as a risk He was willing to take.

Your embrace of Sanders makes a different conversation between you and I, than my conversation with many other Open Theists who disagree up front with him.

This all to say, I believe we'd better start Open Theism part 4 in the archives, because this is going to take a year!

Point taken. Simply: Sanders' definition relies on 'opposite' to conceive of love. That is, he and you place 'not love' in your contextual definition. Generally, definitions are inexact, obscured when its opposite is the impetus of the definition. In short: Freewill theism is problematic with defining love as 'ability to do otherwise' (not-love). It is circular in definition, understanding, and reasoning.
Next: it is the reason I hold 'ability to do otherwise' suspect. Love is 'dedicated to another's highest good.' In my definition, there is no 'Love is that which does not choose to not love by necessity.'

I have no time except to say one thing....

I do not, nor does any open theist I have ever read, define the word love as "the ability to do otherwise". If anything that is what it means to have a will.

Do you believe that it would be conceptually possible for a being that had no will to love? Or don't you agree that will-less love is an oxymoron?

 

[Derf]

I have no time except to say one thing....

I do not, nor does any open theist I have ever read, define the word love as "the ability to do otherwise". If anything that is what it means to have a will.

Do you believe that it would be conceptually possible for a being that had no will to love? Or don't you agree that will-less love is an oxymoron?

And perhaps the phrase should be, "the ability to want otherwise". Sometimes we want simething that is withheld from us, so the ability to do otherwise is not there.

 

[Derf]

Just as that which "tends toward" life is the good. In other words, this would be a redundancy. The point is that the basis for and premise of good is life and the basis for and premise of evil is death. As the scripture affirms...

Deuteronomy 30:15

“See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil,


Huh?

The passage states clearly that God is going down to confirm what He's been told. That makes no sense if God is aware of every event that happens.

Genesis 18:21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”​

Right. He said "according to the outcry against it that has come to Me."
He already knows, but He is going to confirm it. He knows what the sin is, but there's something He doesn't know about it. He also knows the result, just as Abraham did, based merely on the statement above, because Abraham responds by asking for mercy for the town.

The point holds either way.

The point may still be valid, but if you use an invalid premise, your readers will be swayed that your conclusion is invalid.

One way or the other, Calvinism (Augustinianism) false to dust if God didn't sovereignly, infallibly and immutably ordain, predestine and actively cause such things to happen.

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)​

The point isn't that He never envisioned evil but that He is not the source of it.

If you say He never envisioned a particular evil (meaning He didn't even think anyone might do that sin), but the words of the bible show that He did foresee that particular evil as a possibility, then your premise is shown to be invalid.

He didn't invent the act of child sacrifice any more than He invented the digit calculator.

But "invent" is not the concept being considered. "Envision" is. "Invent" follows more closely with what I proposed. If God said, "Thou shalt not make a digit calculator," and then, after it was invented said, "I never thought of a digit calculator before," God would be lying.

Presumes facts not in evidence.

(Oh great! Now I have to go wash the lawyer taste out of my mouth! )