Free Moral Agency revisited

Internity · May 1, 2002

I propose to demonstrate the inherent fallacy of the Christian apologists argument that God is good in spite of the suffering of innocent victims in a world He allegedly created.

The argument, as set forth by the Christian apologist, is often expressed in one of two ways, and more often switched in mid-stream to justify not only that God is good but that free moral agency is proof of His goodness. The arguments are expressed thusly:

Argument 1

1. Free moral agency is a good thing (in spite of the plethora of evils it makes available as choices)

2. God created man as a free moral agent

3. God is good.

Argument 2

1. God is good

2. God created man as a free moral agent

3. Free moral agency is a good thing

Let me just say that I concur with premises 1 and 3 respectively, that free moral agency is a good thing.

The Fallacy Exposed

The inherent fallacy of these arguments are not only in their assumptions but in the improper usage of free moral agency and the ramifications this holds for the Christian.

1. The proper definition for a free moral agent is: one who is free to dictate his own moral prerogatives. Thus one who cannot create his own moral prerogatives is constrained to live by a moral code not of his own making and therefore is not free to alter it. The apologists version of free moral agency limits itself to one who has the free will to choose between compliance or rejection of a moral stricture inspired by God as defined in the scriptures. As we can see his definition is self-limiting in scope and does not accurately reflect the realistic boundaries of humanities prerogatives. Men can, and have, created their own moral codes independent of God.

2. The Christian, by virtue of his commitment to God, is constrained to live by a moral code not of his own making and is not free to alter it without drastically altering the very foundation of Christianity.

3. Following this logic to its bitter conclusion we see that Christians are not free moral agents and thus are either:

(a). not good or

(b). not created by God

4. It is a fallacy for Christians, who are not free moral agents, to argue free moral agency as justification for a claim that God is good yet created a world where the innocent suffer.

Now, by expanding the apologists argument further thusly:

1. God is good

2. Free moral agency is a good thing

3. God created man as a free moral agent

4. Man, endowed with free moral agency, is a good thing

We begin to see that the apologetics in defense of Christianity are then problematically multiplied.

So the next time an apologist pulls the free moral agency argument out of his hat in defense of an all good God your best response would be:

Then why are you a Christian?

ZoneChaos · May 2, 2002

I would add, that it is not enough to say "God is good".. but rather, one must say that all things of God are good, and holy, and righteous, and just, and perfect.

God is perfect.

God cfreated a perfect man as a free moral agent.

Free Moral agency is a perfect thing.

However, the above does not fully express all of mankind's history.

Shortly after man was created a perfect free moral agent, Man altered his perfect nature, and at the same time retained the free moral agency.

Now we have an imperfect being (current state of nature not form God) with perfect moral agency.

Further more, the imperfect man, used the perfect moral agency to further his imperfect nature.

This is no fault of God, but rather the fult of using what God gave Him according to his own will, and not God's original intended will.

We must either choose to judge wether free moral agency is fallable according to God's will, or according to our own.

I would venture to say that it is not a fallacy of God, but of man.

Reformationist · May 2, 2002

Originally posted by Internity
I propose to demonstrate the inherent fallacy of the Christian apologists argument that God is good in spite of the suffering of innocent victims in a world He allegedly created.

This begs the question, why? Will it make you feel better or smarter if you can persuade all the Christians of the world that they've been living a lie?

The proper definition for a free moral agent is: one who is free to dictate his own moral prerogatives. Thus one who cannot create his own moral prerogatives is constrained to live by a moral code not of his own making and therefore is not free to alter it.

That's correct. There is no such thing as free moral agency for anyone, Christian or non-Christian, better known as "free will."

The apologists version of free moral agency limits itself to one who has the free will to choose between compliance or rejection of a moral stricture inspired by God as defined in the scriptures.

An apologist who understands scripture understands that this option is only available to those who have been returned to the state of "pre-fall" reconciliation. Our fallen nature is neither able to choose righteousness prior to God regenerating us nor does it desire it:

Romans 8:7
the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.

Men can, and have, created their own moral codes independent of God.

To believe that anything can happen outside God's Will or control is folly. Man continues to exist with the freedoms (if you can call being a slave to sin "freedom") he enjoys purely because it is part of God's plan for the purpose of sanctifying His children. Seeing the debauchery of this world helps Christians recognize and be joyful that we were resuced from a nature that desires to sin. I don't mean Christians don't sin, they all do. If anyone tells you differently they're wrong. The difference is that it isn't our nature and now we desire to not sin and live in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ (Phil 1:27). Only through adversity are we able to learn the true measure of God's mercy:

James 1:2-4
My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing.

The Christian, by virtue of his commitment to God, is constrained to live by a moral code not of his own making and is not free to alter it without drastically altering the very foundation of Christianity.

Once again true and poignantly showing that there is no such thing as free will. We are either slaves to sin or slaves to our new nature, Christ's nature, but, we were never, and never will be, free.

Following this logic to its bitter conclusion we see that Christians are not free moral agents and thus are either:

(a). not good or

(b). not created by God

We are not free moral agents or good.

Matt 19:17
No one is good but One, that is, God.

We, as are all things, however, created by God. We have been reconciled to our Creator and made righteous by God's actions, that of sending His Son to die for His children, not our own. Even after being saved we often exhibit character traits of our old nature. Being saved does not make a person perfect in action. Living according to God's Word is a learning process, and one that will take our entire lives.

It is a fallacy for Christians, who are not free moral agents, to argue free moral agency as justification for a claim that God is good yet created a world where the innocent suffer.

There is no such thing as innocent human, that being, one that has not the stain of sin upon them:

Is 64:6
But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;

Rom 3:10
There is none righteous, no, not one;

Rom 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Rom 9:10,11
And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls)

So the next time an apologist pulls the free moral agency argument out of his hat in defense of an all good God your best response would be:

Then why are you a Christian?

Again I ask, for what purpose? Just to prove them wrong? If you don't believe in God, or you're just not interested, what do you care if someone judges you by their God's moral code? No one can "convert" you to Christianity. Only God can change your heart. When/If that happens you won't need someone to tell you that God is real, you'll know. And, you'll desire to learn about Him and what He expects from you.

God bless.

Internity · May 2, 2002

Greetings Zonechaos,
Just a few quick observations I developed in response to your reply. By the way, thank you for your efforts, they are appreciated.

ZC: I would add, that it is not enough to say "God is good".. but rather, one must say that all things of God are good, and holy, and righteous, and just, and perfect.

Internity: Why must one say this?

ZC: God is perfect.

Internity: Can any imperfect thing come from a perfect thing?

ZC: God created a perfect man as a free moral agent.

Internity: Then why did perfect man need a commandment not to eat of the forbidden tree? Was moral knowledge not a part of his perfection?

ZC: Free Moral agency is a perfect thing.

Internity: But why would a perfect being need moral agency? Surely his perfect attributes would allow him to do nothing imperfect?If it is a perfect attribute how is it that it is attributed to be the cause of suffering?

ZC: However, the above does not fully express all of mankind's history.

Internity: Or it does not truthfully express any of mankinds history.

ZC: Shortly after man was created a perfect free moral agent, Man altered his perfect nature, and at the same time retained the free moral agency.

Internity: How did a perfect man, without spot or blemish, alter his perfection to imperfection? What is the nature of a perfect man? Can a thing that is without spot or blemish alter itself to become less than perfect? If so, how? If it is perfect and endowed with free moral agency, then surely an intricate aspect of that perfection would have been to perfectly utilize said moral agency. And, what would a perfect being need with morals?

ZC: Now we have an imperfect being (current state of nature not form God) with perfect moral agency.

Internity: Interesting. And how do we have this unique creature again? I missed the part about how this perfect being made itself imperfect.

ZC: Further more, the imperfect man, used the perfect moral agency to further his imperfect nature.

Internity: In as much as his nature has yet to be defined then I would have to set this statement aside for future consideration when we have a clearly defined conceptualization of this imperfect nature.

ZC: This is no fault of God, but rather the fault of using what God gave Him according to his own will, and not God's original intended will.

Internity: Of course, we couldnt allow a perfect being like God take the blame for the imperfection of another perfect being which he allegedly created. After all, what do we expect from perfectionperfection? But then, for this to be true, you are saying that God is not in control of all things. That his perfect will is being abrogated by an imperfect creature's will. I thought God was omnipotent?

ZC: We must either choose to judge wether free moral agency is fallable according to God's will, or according to our own.

Internity: I thought free moral agency was perfect? Is that perfection now at the mercy of popular opinion? And how did a perfect God create a fallable attribute in an otherwise perfect man? Are these our only choices? Doesn't that perfectly demonstrate my original contention that christians are not free moral agents? With them it is ONLY God or not God. But why? What about Vishnu or Allah or Zues? What about man?

ZC: I would venture to say that it is not a fallacy of God, but of man.

Internity: I agree. I would also venture to say that the entire ball of wax is a fallacy created by man.

seebs · May 2, 2002

Originally posted by Internity
I propose to demonstrate the inherent fallacy of the Christian apologists argument that God is good in spite of the suffering of innocent victims in a world He allegedly created.

The argument, as set forth by the Christian apologist, is often expressed in one of two ways, and more often switched in mid-stream to justify not only that God is good but that free moral agency is proof of His goodness.

I think you're missing some key points. I don't think you've demonstrated anything, because you're starting with an assumption about what "Good" is, and assuming that anything not meeting that definition isn't "Good".

Where, exactly, does your definition of "Good" come from? What authority do you have to claim that your definition is the right one, and the only one?

Imagine, for the sake of argument, that I'm innocent, and I'm suffering. (I stubbed my toe badly the other day, if that helps you imagine this.)

What's wrong? I'm not seeing the connection between this description of the world, and any kind of moral value judgement... Unless you decide to accept some kind of frame of reference.

The Christian frame of reference is God's Will, and it is *axiomatic* that His will is Good. Thus, if I don't like something the way it is, the assumption is that *I don't understand it yet*.

This is pure faith, and as such, not really subject to "reasoning"; it's all axioms, with very few conclusions, so you can't attack the "conclusion" the way you do.

Internity · May 2, 2002

Originally posted by Internity: I propose to demonstrate the inherent fallacy of the Christian apologists argument that God is good in spite of the suffering of innocent victims in a world He allegedly created.

Reformationist: This begs the question, why? Will it make you feel better or smarter if you can persuade all the Christians of the world that they've been living a lie?

Internity: It was submitted as a sound argument and stands on its own merits. My emotions or intellectual concerns are irrelevant to the soundness of its premises and the truth value of its conclusion.

:
The proper definition for a free moral agent is: one who is free to dictate his own moral prerogatives. Thus one who cannot create his own moral prerogatives is constrained to live by a moral code not of his own making and therefore is not free to alter it.

Reformationist: That's correct. There is no such thing as free moral agency for anyone, Christian or non-Christian, better known as "free will."

Internity: Oh my. And you support this assertion..how? Me thinks we may nearing the beginning of the end of your objections representing anything close to a cogent rebuttal. We shall, however, grant you the benefit of the doubt and proceed a bit further in the hopes that you can justify this position.

:
The apologists version of free moral agency limits itself to one who has the free will to choose between compliance or rejection of a moral stricture inspired by God as defined in the scriptures.

Reformationist: An apologist who understands scripture understands that this option is only available to those who have been returned to the state of "pre-fall" reconciliation.

Internity: I see. This raises some interesting questions. How does one distinguish such a one from among the flock? Does this mean that anyone who deconverts was not really converted to begin with? What precisely was this pre-fall state you refer to? Why did an all good God allow man to fall in the first place?

Reformationist: Our fallen nature is neither able to choose righteousness prior to God regenerating us nor does it desire it:

Internity: Define this fallen nature and this righteousness of which you speak. Are you saying that man does not come to God of his own volition?

Reformationist: Romans 8:7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.

Internity: Define sinful mind and show me why it must necessarily be hostile to God. What are these laws of which you speak that must be submitted to. Chapter and verse please? Is this submission to be accomplished by the letter or is there some deeper spiritual significance to them? Can you outline the difference if one exists? Is this law moral and if so why? Is submission to this law moral and if so why? Is the God of these laws moral and if so why?

:
Men can, and have, created their own moral codes independent of God.

Reformationist: To believe that anything can happen outside God's Will or control is folly.

Internity: Then mans fall was Gods will and controlled by Him?

Reformationist: Man continues to exist with the freedoms (if you can call being a slave to sin "freedom") he enjoys purely because it is part of God's plan for the purpose of sanctifying His children. Seeing the debauchery of this world helps Christians recognize and be joyful that we were resuced from a nature that desires to sin. I don't mean Christians don't sin, they all do. If anyone tells you differently they're wrong. The difference is that it isn't our nature and now we desire to not sin and live in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ (Phil 1:27). Only through adversity are we able to learn the true measure of God's mercy:

Internity: Oh my. We seem to have arrived at an impasse. Since my argument was predicated on the Christian apologetics that declares man to be a free moral agent and you have now expressed a doctrine that posits man as either a slave to sin or to God we can go no further until this dilemma is resolved. According to this doctrine I am to take it at face value that free moral agency is an illusion. Or that it is only granted to those who God deems worthy, (for whatever reason). Your assertion declares that slavery, therefore, is a good thing if it is to God. You additionally claim that God decides who will be liberated from the camp of sin into the camp of God to be a slave of God rather than to sin. This, according to you, is a good thing.

I, on the other hand, see no good thing coming out of slavery of any kind. I also question the goodness of a God that would create such a quandary for the creature he allegedly loves. And I would seriously question the morals of a God who would then sentence men to eternal torment whom He has not chosen to liberate from the camp of sin. So, until and unless, we can progress beyond this point I see no sense in addressing your doctrinal objections any further. Although I will archive them for future reference in the event we find a resolution to this point.

It would appear that your version of christian doctrine, (there are so many of them I need an encyclopedia to know and identify them as they arise), sidesteps the issue of free moral agency but, in doing so, it renders a vision of your God more monstrous still. An omnipotent God who loves his creatures so much that He creates a world where slavery isn't an option...it is the default condition of man. And this, according to your doctrine, is a good thing from a good God who, in his perfect love, has made a way for the slave to change masters. I personally find this to be one of the most revolting interpretations of the christian message.

Rather than addressing the salient points of the argument, this rebuttal actually lends it more credence...or, in the least, makes it more palatable.

Internity · May 2, 2002

:
Originally posted by Internity I propose to demonstrate the inherent fallacy of the Christian apologists argument that God is good in spite of the suffering of innocent victims in a world He allegedly created. The argument, as set forth by the Christian apologist, is often expressed in one of two ways, and more often switched in mid-stream to justify not only that God is good but that free moral agency is proof of His goodness.

Seebs: I think you're missing some key points. I don't think you've demonstrated anything, because you're starting with an assumption about what "Good" is, and assuming that anything not meeting that definition isn't "Good".

Internity: I define good as that which sustains and promotes human life and liberty. The specifics require no God to articulate. In fact, statutory law is a prime example. This definition is both intuitively satisfying and universally accepted.

Seebs: Where, exactly, does your definition of "Good" come from?

Internity: My own life and experiences.

Seebs: What authority do you have to claim that your definition is the right one, and the only one?

Internity: The authority vested in me by virtue of my presence and participation in this reality. Why is a supernatural authority required?

Seebs: Imagine, for the sake of argument, that I'm innocent, and I'm suffering. (I stubbed my toe badly the other day, if that helps you imagine this.) What's wrong? I'm not seeing the connection between this description of the world, and any kind of moral value judgement... Unless you decide to accept some kind of frame of reference.

Internity: I do not assign moral value to all suffering. Only that suffering resulting from a willfully committed act by someone seeking to sustain or further their ends at my expense without my consent. I share the responsibility for addressing these instances with my fellow man via law enforcement. God is not required. I do not blame a non-existent god for mine or anyone elses suffering. It is the Christian who assigns a frame of reference to my existence using Gods will and sovereignty to dictate these parameters. I assume your position for the sake of argument. If, as you say below, everything that happens, (including accidental injury to ones toe), falls within the constraints of Gods will, then all suffering, be it accidental or purposefully initiated, is Gods responsibility. The burden resides in your court to show me, the un-believer, how Gods will is furthered by your suffering.

Seebs: The Christian frame of reference is God's Will, and it is *axiomatic* that His will is Good. Thus, if I don't like something the way it is, the assumption is that *I don't understand it yet*.

Internity: If it is axiomatic that God and His will are good then why is it not universally so? It is only self evident to one who has presupoosed it to be so. The justification has not been established. Upon what evidences do you declare it axiomatic? If appealing to a current lack of understanding is your only option is that also Gods will?

Seebs: This is pure faith, and as such, not really subject to "reasoning"; it's all axioms, with very few conclusions, so you can't attack the "conclusion" the way you do.

Internity: I submit that the faith here, as defined so many different ways by the Christian apologist, is neither pure nor axiomatic. The doctrines interpreted from biblical text convey the substance of your reasoning and are not immediately axiomatic. After a season of indoctrination they take on this quality, but only after. They intuitively appeal to certain individuals for various sociological reasons but they wither epistemologically under critical examination as Ive demonstrated in this argument.

That the Christian God is all good is an assumed conclusion by the apologist and one, I might add, he has yet to establish conclusively. When the arguments are spread out over the entire course of the Christian message and divided equally among the omni-max attributes of this God the entire artifice begins to crumble under its own weight until we end up with a conclusion that such a God is incomprehensible thereby negating any claim to being self evident or axiomatic. We end up concluding that there is no shortage of a current lack of understanding or chucking the whole thing as irreparably damaged. Faith, under these circumstances, cannot be defined as pure. And when I see grown men indoctrinating young men to crash jet planes into the lives of thousands of innocent people, in the name of god, I can do naught but conclude that faith in any god is anything but pure.

Reformationist · May 3, 2002

Originally posted by Internity
It was submitted as a sound argument and stands on its own merits. My emotions or intellectual concerns are irrelevant to the soundness of its premises and the truth value of its conclusion.

Internity, before you get offended (maybe it's too late), let me explain my question. You must understand that where questions of logic vs. faith are concerned you are raising a fruitless debate. You seem like an intelligent person, so you must have gathered that you won't really be able to convince a Christian person that anything God does is "unfair" or "unrighteous" based on your interpretation of what is "good." After rereading your original comments I think I have determined, by your last two sentences in the post, that your post wasn't really directed at Christians to begin with. And, if it was directed at non-Christians, it seems as if you are merely "preaching to the Choir." Non-Christians already don't think the Bible to be true or that it portrays a righteous God. The "truth value" of a premise is only defined by those who have an opinion on a particular topic. All that's going to happen is that you are going to receive responses from Christians justifying God's actions by the merits they deem reliable.

This raises some interesting questions. How does one distinguish such a one from among the flock?

Matthew 7:16
You will know them by their fruits.

Galatians 5:22,23
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.

Does this mean that anyone who deconverts was not really converted to begin with?

This is the "age old" argument of "can you lose your salvation." My answer to this is, "if we were the ones who granted it, held it, or ensured it, yes. However, we are not. So, there is no such thing as deconverting."

What precisely was this pre-fall state you refer to?

The "pre-fall" state is also known as the "pre-Adamic" state. This refers to the period of time prior to Adam's disobedience to God resulting in man's spiritual death and fall from God's grace. The result of this is a nature that is bound to sin by it's trespasses against God's righteous commands. Prior to this fall, man was not bound by sin and was "free" to choose to obey God's commandments without being bound by a nature that desires to sin. Adams disobedience is always looked at in a negative light due to the resultant fall. However, I would contend that his intent, while sinful because it directly went against God's command, could also be considered in the light that Adam desired to be more righteous because he loved the Lord.

Why did an all good God allow man to fall in the first place?

Of this I could only speculate, as I'm not God. I believe it was for the purpose of creating for us a need for a Savior. The result of this is an abounding love for God and joyfulness that can only come about when people have been unmeritoriously rescued from a destiny that they were unable to save themselves from.

Define this fallen nature and this righteousness of which you speak.

The fallen nature is the nature that man inherited due to the sins of Adam. This nature is bound to sin and can only sin. Everything the nature of fallen man desires is at enmity with God because these desires are spawned from a heart whose main motivation for doing things is selfish ambition with no regard for the majesty of God or the welfare of others.

Righteousness is when your motivation for doing something is for the welfare or betterment of others and your love for God with no regard for yourself. The fallen man is inherently motivated by selfish fulfillment vice the needs of others. Even if the fallen man does something that "outwardly" appears selfless it is still sinful because it is predicated by a sinful desire. This could be something as simple as being recognized for the action or even just for the purpose of feeling better about yourself for doing something for someone else. Those are both selfish reasons whose motivation is self rather than others with no regard for self.

Are you saying that man does not come to God of his own volition?

The fallen man does not desire to follow God. God must take out their "heart of stone" and replace it with a "heart of flesh." This new heart, or nature, desires to please God, and, is now able to do so:

Phil 2:13
For God is working in you, giving you the desire to obey him and the power to do what pleases him.

Define sinful mind and show me why it must necessarily be hostile to God.

The sinful mind is the mind of fallen man. It is at enmity with God because it is the antithesis of everything that He is. The sinful mind desires carnal things. The regenerate mind desires to please God, even if our fleshly bodies are weak and still occasionally sin.

What are these laws of which you speak that must be submitted to. Chapter and verse please?

Matthew 22:36-40
"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"

Jesus said to him, "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

Is this submission to be accomplished by the letter or is there some deeper spiritual significance to them? Can you outline the difference if one exists? Is this law moral and if so why? Is submission to this law moral and if so why? Is the God of these laws moral and if so why?

Sorry. I don't know what you mean by any of this.

Then mans fall was Gods will and controlled by Him?

Nothing happens outside of the Will of God. That answer it?

I, on the other hand, see no good thing coming out of slavery of any kind.

I imagine you can't. Don't get hung up on the word "slavery."

John 8:31-36
Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, 'You will be made free'?"
Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

I also question the goodness of a God that would create such a quandary for the creature he allegedly loves. And I would seriously question the morals of a God who would then sentence men to eternal torment whom He has not chosen to liberate from the camp of sin.

I imagine you would.

I personally find this to be one of the most revolting interpretations of the christian message.

This is the result of man making God in His image. IOW, you define what you think is right or wrong and because of your limited view of the overall purpose of God bringing about suffering in the lives of even those He loves you catagorize God's actions as unjustifiable or cruel. The bottom line is, God is the creator and is not subject to your judgment, even if you think you can isolate events and use them to dictate God's character. I truly hope that God blesses you in such a way that you must acknowledge Him.

Rather than addressing the salient points of the argument, this rebuttal actually lends it more credence...or, in the least, makes it more palatable.

Let me get this straight. Because I came along and agreed that there is no such thing as "free will" you find the view that you conjured, using your catagories of "right and wrong," "good and evil" to be justified. Well, good luck with that. :sigh:

Unfortunately, it won't turn out like you planned.

God bless.

ZoneChaos · May 5, 2002

ZC: I would add, that it is not enough to say "God is good".. but rather, one must say that all things of God are good, and holy, and righteous, and just, and perfect.

Internity: Why must one say this?

Becasue , to not say it, is to not give the complate picture of the object of the conversation. God describes Himself in amny ways, and all must be accounted when speaking of the things of God, the nature of God, the reasoning of God. (Tpo the best of our limited ability).

ZC: God is perfect.

Internity: Can any imperfect thing come from a perfect thing?

No. All things from God or of God.. all things of GOd ore perfect, as God is perfect.

ZC: God created a perfect man as a free moral agent.

Internity: Then why did perfect man need a commandment not to eat of the forbidden tree?

Many reasons for this. Simply, man needed a test, to show his faith. Man needed a way to show God obedience, not for God's sake, but for man's.

This "perfect man" was perfect because man was made as God intended it to me made: sinless. This does not mean that man was a god. The two trees: Knowledge of Good and Evil and Tree of Life, would have granted man the state of being a god... something God Himself cxould not allow, accordig to His own nature of being the One True God.

Was moral knowledge not a part of his perfection?

I do not think it was. Morality defines right or wrong (good and evil). Man, in his perfection, did not know right from wrong.. did not know sin. The only Moral code up until the fall, was do not eat fo the trees. That was it.

ZC: Free Moral agency is a perfect thing.

Internity: But why would a perfect being need moral agency?

Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. Obviously, if we consider God's plan, then yes, it would seem so. God needed Adam to have the limited Moral understanding of obediance, in order to disobey.

Surely his perfect attributes would allow him to do nothing imperfect?

But what was "imperfect" in a world without imperfection?

Using free will to choose was not an imperfect action. Choice to obey or disobey was part of the original design, and function as it should have: perfectly. The results of that choice, in Adam and Eve's case, led to imperfection as a consequence, but the initial ability to chose was was imperfect.

If it is a perfect attribute how is it that it is attributed to be the cause of suffering?

The ability of making a decision por a choice did not casue the suffering, but rather the will to disobey did.

ZC: However, the above does not fully express all of mankind's history.

Internity: Or it does not truthfully express any of mankinds history.

Only up until the fall, that is, if you accep the bible as a legitimate text.

ZC: Shortly after man was created a perfect free moral agent, Man altered his perfect nature, and at the same time retained the free moral agency.

Internity: How did a perfect man, without spot or blemish, alter his perfection to imperfection?

Through Disobediance. Choosing the choice that resulted in disobediance was not an imperfect action, it only resulted in an imperfect state.

What is the nature of a perfect man?

Being sinless.

Can a thing that is without spot or blemish alter itself to become less than perfect?

Yes.

If so, how?

By allowinf sin to become a part of its nature.

If it is perfect and endowed with free moral agency, then surely an intricate aspect of that perfection would have been to perfectly utilize said moral agency.

BUt that "free moraL agency" would have been limited to things that did not pertain to "good and evil".

And, what would a perfect being need with morals?

Exactly. Other, then obediance, I do not think morality existed, except as a part of the nature of God.

ZC: Now we have an imperfect being (current state of nature not form God) with perfect moral agency.

Internity: Interesting. And how do we have this unique creature again? I missed the part about how this perfect being made itself imperfect.

The sinless being, let sin become a part of its nature, thus altering its nature to a sinful nature, whic is an imperfect nature. That frist sin, and thus the nature of being sinful began with the first decision of disobedience.

ZC: This is no fault of God, but rather the fault of using what God gave Him according to his own will, and not God's original intended will.

Internity: Of course, we couldnt allow a perfect being like God take the blame for the imperfection of another perfect being which he allegedly created.

It isn't that we couldn't allow it, but that God's own nature of being perfect couldn't allow it.

After all, what do we expect from perfectionperfection?

Yep.

But then, for this to be true, you are saying that God is not in control of all things.

From a certain point of view. For instance, God cannot go against his own nature, nor His own Will.

That his perfect will is being abrogated by an imperfect creature's will. I thought God was omnipotent?

He is omnipotent in nature, according to His will. And it was His will that man have the ability to excercise his own will. So, while God is omnipotent, He also cannot act against His own Will or wanting man to act upon his own will.

Now, if it is not God;'s will, to allow man to have a will, then the argument of God's omnipotence always superceeding man's will if aplicable, but if God willed for man to have a will, then, by His own nature, GOd has to allow man to excervise his will, even if ti goes against God's own Will.

ZC: We must either choose to judge wether free moral agency is fallable according to God's will, or according to our own.

Internity: I thought free moral agency was perfect?

It is, if it is of God. I think it is.

Is that perfection now at the mercy of popular opinion?

Nto exactly, but the definition of morality is being re-defined by imperfect popular opinion.. along with it, the perfect morality that Gog originally established in Law.

And how did a perfect God create a fallable attribute in an otherwise perfect man?

Again, I don't think it is fallabl.

Are these our only choices? Doesn't that perfectly demonstrate my original contention that christians are not free moral agents?

I do not think anyone is a free moral agent. I think everyone is an agent of God's morality, wether they recognize it or not... sooner or later they will be judged by it.

With them it is ONLY God or not God. But why? What about Vishnu or Allah or Zues? What about man?

God is currently the only real God that is perfect in his morality.

ZC: I would venture to say that it is not a fallacy of God, but of man.

Internity: I agree. I would also venture to say that the entire ball of wax is a fallacy created by man.

I would need you to define "ball of wax".

seebs · May 5, 2002

Originally posted by Internity

Seebs: I think you're missing some key points. I don't think you've demonstrated anything, because you're starting with an assumption about what "Good" is, and assuming that anything not meeting that definition isn't "Good".

Internity: I define good as that which sustains and promotes human life and liberty. The specifics require no God to articulate. In fact, statutory law is a prime example. This definition is both intuitively satisfying and universally accepted.

I don't see either "intuitively satisfying" or "universally accepted" as compelling arguments in this context, and I don't think "universally accepted" is true at all. I think almost all moral systems will be somewhat compatible with your ideas, but certainly, many moral systems reject liberty as counterproductive.

Once again, where do you think this comes from? What *makes* it "good"?

Othniel · May 23, 2002

3. Following this logic to its bitter conclusion we see that Christians are not free moral agents and thus are either:

(a). not good or

(b). not created by God

"See to it that no one takes you captive thorugh hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world, rather than on Christ."

Colossians 2:8

If we depends on our own logic, we have ceased to depend on Christ. God has blessed us with human reason, but we must accept our own limitations.

Peace be with you all.

<><

ProScribe · Apr 14, 2011

I replied to this post after finishing forum maintenance. [<.>]

Search

Search

Free Moral Agency revisited

Internity

Member

More options

ZoneChaos

Senior Veteran

More options

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

More options

Internity

Member

More options

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic

More options

Internity

Member

More options

Internity

Member

More options

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

More options

ZoneChaos

Senior Veteran

More options

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic

More options

Othniel

Cup Overflowing

More options

ProScribe

Well-Known Member

More options

Similar threads