Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

When you said "He can't do it by directly influencing" I believe that there is an issue here regarding "directly" and how you are using it in the sentence.

My main objection was to the use of the English word "can't" here rather than the English word "doesn't" which would be preferred in order to be accurate.

Essentially, by 'directly', I meant an intervention that would result in the choice of an option that would otherwise not be chosen, but I've made a (rather arbitrary) distinction between direct and indirect in my previous post.

Now when "i" said, "God can intervene and take away choices" I wasn't referring to internal ability. I was referring to circumstances. Circumstances can change inclinations... and this is important also.

So we're free to choose from whatever options God's intervention in circumstances provides?

Is there some reliable source for this detailed knowledge about what God does and doesn't do? the Bible?

 

[Breckmin]

I meant any intervention that would bias or otherwise influence free decision-making; this could be either indirect, such as causing a physical (e.g. warmth or chill, shudder or sweat) or emotional response when considering an option;

Intervention into the natural world to change circumstances is something that God does...but this does not take away internal ability to self-generate and freely choose between options.

or direct, such as hiding an available option from conscious awareness, or changing the assessed weighting of some consideration,

Neither of these would change internal ability (that I'm referring to)... but they could of course change the outcome of a choice...thus the complication.

or physically (or mentally) making the individual select a particular option and modifying their memory to correspond...

Ok. Now we are getting somewhere. "making the individual select a particular option" is still different from modifying memory... These two are also distinct. God might do the latter..idk...but I'm not aware of any biblical pattern where
God made a temporary puppet out of a human freewill cognitive being. Having freewill is part of being created in God's
conscious and spiritual "image."

I can see that guiding the situation so that the available or apparent options are limited in some way might (arguably) be said not to be interfering with freewill, in as much as a free choice between those (limited or pre-selected) options can be made; but I'm now wondering at what point influencing someone's 'inclinations' becomes interference with their freewill.

You should read the Freedom of the Will by Jonathan Edwards. He deals with this quite extensively. The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther is also an important read on the subject. Inclinations are distinct from internal ability to freely choose...but the end result of the decision(s) go hand in hand with choosing according to the strongest inclination.

If God arranges it so that the individual feels, for example, a moment of revulsion when considering one option and/or a moment of happiness considering another (it could be done externally with fleeting aromas), such that their inclinations are strongly biased in favour of one option, that would seem to me like interference with freewill. But this seems like a complex area, with fine distinctions to be made; it would seem that there must be a limit to the degree of influence on the inclinations of an individual that approaches that of compatibilist freewill (choice free of coercion or constraint), at which point freewill becomes simply the feeling that a choice is made free of coercion or constraint, when, unknown to the individual, they are being influenced in the direction of one option or other.

"seems like a complex area, with fine distinctions to be made;"

yep... and we are just barely scratching the surface here. I'm a compatibilist but I do not define compatibilism as choice free of coercion or constraint since determinism is neither of those two. I believe that libertarian freewill can exist within a system of theological infinite determinism where there are infinite determiners...but the cause is always self-generated. (we'd have to get specific).

"they are being influenced in the direction of one option or other."
You are always free to go against these influences.. especially when you become aware of them...or they are "brought to mind."

You say that, "God has all sorts of abilities through His omnipotence that God freely chooses NOT to use". This is what I mean by self-imposed rules & guidelines - He's free to do anything, but chooses to refrain from some actions - so He allows us to exercise our freewill rather than treat us as biological puppets, and so-on. If there wasn't some degree of consistency in this framework of what He chooses to do and what He chooses not to do, we wouldn't have much to talk about...

Thank you for clarifying this point. Guidelines for God seemed quite general but "self-imposed modus operandi" is a little bit more understandable. (perhaps)

The extremely wealthy are generally better insulated from the consequences of poor decisions than the poorest; but I suppose one could say that anyone who avoids the consequences of a poor decision does it thanks to God - although one could say the same about anyone who suffers the consequences of a poor decision...

This point was about consequences for sin, however... and about "grace"/mercy to be saved from those consequences of justice in the afterlife. Temporary financial gain and financial blessings would clearly go back to God as far as God-given talents and abilities go. God is not obligated to give the fallen creature anything at all... so this traces back to judgement as well.

It's a fine line; internal ability is what enables one to identify options, and is honed by the experience of the consequences of choices.

The identification of options (and the ability/knowledge of identification), however, is not what I mean by self-generated freedom to choose freely between the two or more options.

Ah, OK; I thought, when you said, "There may be times when God DOES indeed "intervene" and change the outcome of the/a particular choice", and "God generally "does NOT" (rather than "can't") interfere with your internal freewill ability" (my bolding), that you were suggesting that, on occasion, He does.

God might. We'd have to talk about specific instances in scripture for establishing a biblical pattern. God can send an angel for instance to stop a particular action. God can blind a Pharisee who is persecuting Christians and change his life so that now he (the Pharisee) is following Christ as a Christian and building eternal reward. But I would argue that in these cases God is NOT messing with or changing your "internal ability" to self-generate... and choose what you want based on your strongest inclination.

That sounds a pretty complex system of good and evil freewill agents... but if there is, as you say, "God's restraint of evil (iow, we would be even worse)", God must ensure the overall bias is away from evil - otherwise there would be no restraint. Perhaps by having more good agents than evil agents, or more powerful good agents than evil ones?

Not necessarily...but there are more holy angels than fallen angels in Christian theology. 66.3% to 33.3% is the belief.
God is under no obligation here...so when you say "God must ensure" something...it raises concern. God doesn't need
angels to restrain evil...His Spirit can do this also...as well as His omnipotence...and God has put various rules in place by which unclean spirits must abide by...but you are correct in that it is very complicated...and could derail the discussion on
self-generated ability.

God-given but self-generated?

Absolutely. You are created with this ability to self-generate. God-given= created. Self-generate= you originate or create.
You are created to be a mental little creator in God's universe in some respects. You can't create physical objects.. or matter (but you might be able to mold, manipulate or build with it) but you can create thought(s) in your human consciousness...and you can also create what is known as "sin debt" by your immoral actions.

He wouldn't need to remove internal ability to modify the values we place on the factors we assess when making a decision. But sure, God could change the outcome of any decision we make to whatever He wanted - and presumably we wouldn't know the difference between that and if He had done nothing at all. Indeed, it seems to me that, in general, this world appears to run as if God doesn't interfere in it at all...

Unless you look at the lives of people like the apostle Paul, or look at the testimony of Christians where God DID intervene (externally) to change their circumstances...and (internally) changed their "hearts" (born-again) which thus changed their inclinations.

Salvation involves God intervening in the life of a creature... to bring them to adoption in Christ Jesus.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You should read the Freedom of the Will by Jonathan Edwards. He deals with this quite extensively. The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther is also an important read on the subject.

Thanks; I'll look them up.

Inclinations are distinct from internal ability to freely choose...but the end result of the decision(s) go hand in hand with choosing according to the strongest inclination.

So by suitably modifying one's inclinations, God can effectively determine one's choice without - strictly - interfering with its freedom...?

... I do not define compatibilism as choice free of coercion or constraint since determinism is neither of those two.

It's not a definition, but a qualifier; as I understand it, most compatibilists would not regard a coerced or constrained choice as free - although what is coercive or constraining can be subjective and subject to change (e.g. "I thought I'd made a free choice, but I later discovered I was unwittingly coerced"). This is a problem with the semantics of nebulous abstractions like 'free'.

It's interesting that discussions about the intimate details of freewill so often seem to stray so far from the popular conception of it...

Thanks for taking my questions seriously.

 

[Breckmin]

So by suitably modifying one's inclinations, God can effectively determine one's choice without - strictly - interfering with its freedom...?

I would say "no" and here's why. You used the word "determine" and I'm not certain of its meaning in this context because freewill is unlike any other causal system. 1. changing an inclination wouldn't interfere with its "freedom." 2. Choices are still "internally" free when we choose what we want. 3. "We" often change our own inclinations based on a series of previous choices. 4. YES indeed God can and does change Christians and this change can change their inclinations IF they walk in the spirit rather than walk in the flesh.... but it still depends on the individual will which is self-generated and inclinations are too complicated to say that are being externally modified by God. We participate through a series of our own choices which make us who we are. Now God can give us a new nature and "change our will" yes...so now we will freely choose to make better different choices based on how we see things differently...and our "wants" (desires/inclinations) are changed.

It still really depends on what specifically the individual choice is...so its not so monolithic as to perfectly work 100% of the time because the Christian struggles against circumstances as well as/with their two different natures (flesh/new spirit).

It's not a definition, but a qualifier; as I understand it, most compatibilists would not regard a coerced or constrained choice as free - although what is coercive or constraining can be subjective and subject to change (e.g. "I thought I'd made a free choice, but I later discovered I was unwittingly coerced"). This is a problem with the semantics of nebulous abstractions like 'free'.

I would say that the wiser compatiblists would understand that internal ability to choose a lessor of two evils is distinct from the "freedom" to choose or not to choose. No matter what the consequences are... you are internally free to choose between options even under coercion or inability to remove yourself from the unthinkable choices brought on by captors, abusers, slave masters, dictators, enemies, attackers, etc. Your external circumstances are a separate distinction from your internal ability to exercise freewill... and really "everyone" should see this and recognize this...or they don't understand the material/subject matter. Freewill does not equal freedom.

Compatibilism deals with God's relationship to your freedom to choose between one or more options. God's ordination is not a cause... but it DOES contain multiple causes -"some" from God... so there are multiple factors to address within the complexity of the schema.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I would say "no" and here's why. You used the word "determine" and I'm not certain of its meaning in this context because freewill is unlike any other causal system. 1. changing an inclination wouldn't interfere with its "freedom." 2. Choices are still "internally" free when we choose what we want. 3. "We" often change our own inclinations based on a series of previous choices. 4. YES indeed God can and does change Christians and this change can change their inclinations IF they walk in the spirit rather than walk in the flesh.... but it still depends on the individual will which is self-generated and inclinations are too complicated to say that are being externally modified by God. We participate through a series of our own choices which make us who we are. Now God can give us a new nature and "change our will" yes...so now we will freely choose to make better different choices based on how we see things differently...and our "wants" (desires/inclinations) are changed.

It still really depends on what specifically the individual choice is...so its not so monolithic as to perfectly work 100% of the time because the Christian struggles against circumstances as well as/with their two different natures (flesh/new spirit).



I would say that the wiser compatiblists would understand that internal ability to choose a lessor of two evils is distinct from the "freedom" to choose or not to choose. No matter what the consequences are... you are internally free to choose between options even under coercion or inability to remove yourself from the unthinkable choices brought on by captors, abusers, slave masters, dictators, enemies, attackers, etc. Your external circumstances are a separate distinction from your internal ability to exercise freewill... and really "everyone" should see this and recognize this...or they don't understand the material/subject matter. Freewill does not equal freedom.

Compatibilism deals with God's relationship to your freedom to choose between one or more options. God's ordination is not a cause... but it DOES contain multiple causes -"some" from God... so there are multiple factors to address within the complexity of the schema.

If god can give you a new nature...they why doesn't he just change everyone's nature to one that doesn't rape or kill?

 

[Tinker Grey]

If God can give Christians a new nature, why isn't this in evidence?

 

[Colter]

Question, according to the Hebrews writing in Babylon, God decided to drown the whole world because of the wickedness of man, with the exception of an ancestor of the authors of the flood story. My question is, why didn't God destroy Satan? Seems he would be the first to go???? Thanks.

 

[Breckmin]

If god can give you a new nature...they why doesn't he just change everyone's nature to one that doesn't rape or kill?

Excellent Question. (to which there is NO "simple" answer short of a book's worth of material)

The new nature doesn't guarantee that a person won't rape or kill because now the person will have two natures and the believer must decide between walking in the flesh (the old nature) and walking in the Spirit (the new nature). People have freewill. Now in heaven the old nature will be removed for the believer...so then there will no longer be and raping or killing
going on...because people will no longer have a "potential" to use their "ability" to sin. They might still have the ability to do something bad...but now like God they will never "want" to so they have no potential to abuse their ability/freewill.

So now the question gets pushed back to "Why doesn't God give everyone two natures...or why did God give anyone a nature which would want to rape or kill in the first place?" Answer: It's not that simple. God doesn't give everyone a evil or sinful nature...this nature is inherited as a logical consequence for sin because of sins corruption and God's justice. We might ask "Why does God have to be just?" and give inherited consequences as a result of sin and that would lead to a complicated discussion involving the doctrine of "original sin" and the various views of Federalism and Realism and particularly "neo-Federalism" which is slightly different from Federalism which is my personal view.

The bottom line is that you are basically asking "Why can't God just start with heaven?" or "Why doesn't God just save everybody?" Well the reality is that if everyone is saved then no one is saved because the word saved becomes meaningless in that there would be no opposite condition in eternity to point to to actually be saved "from." Somebody has to go to hell in eternity to make hell real or to make "salvation" and "grace" meaningful terms...otherwise the end result is just inevitable fate. Inevitable fate doesn't help remove the potential for future sin in heaven.... but incredible grace and election does...and so does self-sacrificing love.....and seeing what incredible love God has for His adopted children...and so does observing the consequences of sin... and so does forgiveness...and so does rescuing someone create loyalty in them. By the way, no one "deserves" to have the Holy Creator living inside them and fellowshipping with them forever...and this truth will not be hidden in eternity. Part of this multifaceted answer is that the TRUTH will not be hidden for all of eternity on all sorts of issues involving what we do and don't deserve. God maximizes God's glory by starting with a temporary creation in order to Glorify Himself in a symmetrical afterlife. To isolate and say it is "all about God's glory" would be of course wrong since this would ignore the glory of angels and adopted children who share in His glory.

So the first question, "Why can't God just start with heaven?" is the big one... and that involves the REAL problem of evil... not in explaining "why there is evil" but rather in explaining how freewill is a danger to the creature "because of" the absolute Holiness and Justice of God. It indeed comes back to freewill and the ability to spiritually kill yourself (separate you from God's affectionate fellowship) and the later new heaven and new earth) for all of eternity because God is perfect and holy and will not fellowship with what is spiritually "tainted."

So your asking a very big question... one that does not have a simple answer but rather has a very large multifaceted answer which connects the glory of God the Father and the glory of Christ (Who is the Man God became)to the glory of angels to the glory of adopted children to the glory of God displaying His holiness and His justice. It's a big answer because it is directly related to a very large multifaceted comprehensive theodicy which addresses the necessity of learning through experience (and/or observing consequences of others' experience) to the necessity of contrasts (good/evil, pain/pleasure, suffering/joy, forgiveness/non-forgiveness,etc). There is a plan for angels and a plan for humans. It is not equal...and there is no such observation of anything "equal" in the universe. (no two people with exact same circumstances).

For humans - God starts with a temporary creation (the one we are in) so that God is fully glorified in a symmetrical afterlife (even if there are many more in one place than the other - 1 person going to justice is no worse than 2... nor worse 10 no worse than 50 or a hundred billion because who is to say who is the one who is necessary. If fallen angels can go to eternal justice then why not humans?).

For angels - God allows some angels to observe the consequences other angels and learn from it to remove their potential as they grow and love and glorify God and see God's incredible grace to Christians... and God allows other angels/demons to suffer (be given)perfect justice with no plan for salvation. If you don't understand the "rightness" of this then you don't understand the Holiness of God.

There is nothing wrong with justice once you understand how it is connected to God's righteousness...and the RIGHTNESS of consequences and punishment for sin...and just as importantly "how sin *taints* the creature (angel or human) in the relationship to a Holy God" and God's logical characteristics of Holiness to not fellowship with that which is morally tainted. Now you might say in response that you know plenty of Christians who are morally tainted...but that is because you are not seeing that there eternal spirits have been given perfection through Jesus' substitutionary death and atonement for their "taintness." God gives Christians a new nature. Well, how do they get this new nature? Answer: from God's Holy Spirit by God's incredible grace to them through their faith (ultimately given to them by God). God allows all circumstances.

Some people in different circumstances are more apt to be more humble that others, and others are more in need and more open to a relationship with God. That is often why young children are more open to the gospel or more people who are in need (the poor) are open to the gospel and there are also specific people who sometimes have dramatic intervention in their lives. Why doesn't God do it to everybody? (back to an earlier answer..then there would be no salvation ...just inevitable fate and no demonstration of consequences to add to the loyalty (removing the potential for future sin) of those who are redeemed.... as well as many many other things which we are not going to be able to mention unless I write a book right here on the spot. For instance, there is something about the quality of relationship that comes from restoration an forgiveness. This doesn't happen for angels but it DOES happen for God's adopted children (believers).

The scripture teaches that no one is able to become a Christian and get this new nature unless it is a gift that is given to them by the Father. This falls under the category of what is known as God's election. It's not equal...but there is no such thing as equal circumstances in this universe (to appeal to as a basis for "fairness") to use in it objection to God. No one is able to come to Jesus unless it is given to Him by God the Father.

So the question then becomes, "why doesn't God create creatures without freewill?" Why would God create some creatures with an ability that is a "danger" to them because of His absolute Holiness and Perfection?

We often say that love is the greatest ethic which should be allowed to exist in this universe. God should be allowed to create creatures in His conscious spiritual Image so that love from the creature can exist. You can't love God if you can't self generate. You can't love God if you don't have the ability to withhold it. You can't agree with God if you don't have the ability to disagree (disagreeing will eternally taint you). You can't say yes if you can't say no. You can't obey God if you don't have the ability to disobey God. Ability and potential are two distinct things.... and very important things to understand how you can have ability without potential. You can have an ability but never use it because you have no potential to use it because you would never "want" to use it. The quality of relationship that comes from restoration and forgiveness is one of many things which creates logical loyalty and removes (eternal) potential to misuse your ability. When you truly love God... and then you have the old nature [of the bondage of sin removed] (the ball and chain of the disposition to want to sin and be selfish) then you have eternal logical obedience, etc.

One thing that is very important here is Jesus Christ... the Man that God became. The glory of Jesus Christ to have the perfect gift of His bride (all believers) given to Him from/by God the Father as a result of Jesus paying the price for their sin is what makes creating people in God's conscious spiritual Image with the ability to love and yet sin and need to be saved a perfect thing to do. IOW, love's existence warrants it. (elliptical and imperfectly stated) It warrants the necessity of freewill to exist so that love can exist. If freewill doesn't exist then you have no love from creatures, no genuine relationships from creatures, no logical ability of true self-generated obedience from creatures...and no logical genuine worship from Creatures.
If you wrongfully isolate and say that this is "all about everybody worshiping God" then you are missing the glory of the other things listed (holy angels, Christians, truth will not be hidden, etc.

If god can give you a new nature...they why doesn't he just change everyone's nature to one that doesn't rape or kill?

A new nature alone that includes freewill doesn't necessarily work without other factors. (loyalty, inclinations, experiences, relationship, etc)

I believe just changing someone's nature when they have freewill doesn't guarantee the elimination of potential sin in eternity. I believe WE humans need "more." That is what this temporary creation is all about.... beginning point to create a symmetrical eternity which maximizes God's glory and the Glory of Jesus Christ (God the Son) and prepares a Bride (the invisible church -kingdom of God in the hearts of men) and proclaims the truth of God's glory so that nothing is hidden for all of eternity. Decisions are distinct from natures. A nature is only part of the impetus for a morally logical decision.

Good stuff...even if I was indeed "all over the place."

Question everything. Question why you wouldn't want to be part of the glory of the gift of God to Jesus Christ rather than the glory of God justice against sin (your sin...your objective guilty of God's precepts).

 

[Breckmin]

If God can give Christians a new nature, why isn't this in evidence?

Excellent question. One word... disobedience.

The Christian has two natures. One is their old selfish nature which we will call "the flesh" and a new perfect nature which we will call "the Spirit." The Christian also has freewill. The Christian must CHOOSE between walking in the flesh and walking in the Spirit. If they walk in the flesh they will lose eternal reward in heaven and also miss out on many immediate blessings (but still be saved). If they walk in obedience and walk in the Spirit then they will receive great eternal rewards for doing so.

The world often sees the results of Christians being disobedient. Christians are chastised by God and often the world doesn't understand that the Christian is suffering temporary immediate consequences for their sin in the temporary creation.
Christians often do not choose walking in the Spirit over walking in the flesh (some Christians will disagree with the terminology here in how I'm using "walking in the flesh" as it applies to a believer because they don't understand what I'm not referring to).

The world also observes the Christian's struggle. The Christian struggles against the world (influences of this world system), the flesh (their old nature), and unclean deceiving spirits (the devil) which can hold many Christians in bondage to different degrees based on their obedience, confession of sin(s) and lies or pride. Most Christians do not practice what's called self-deliverance (a misnomer) when they should.... especially Christians with OCD....so they continue in all different forms of disobedience....thus the world observes this and calls them "hypocrites" when they are sometimes really just being inconsistent Christians and fully aware that they mostly practice what they preach but sometimes don't. Almost every believer struggles with this at different levels at different points in their lives.

I hope some of this helps. In the early days of Christian persecution...most Christians were much more consistent and engaged in spiritual warfare and I believe demonstrated that they had a new nature to a much better degree than what we see here today.

Perhaps I misunderstood your question regarding evidence. Clearly you couldn't see/behold an invisible nature... all you can see is results of either being obedient or disobedient.

 

[Breckmin]

Question, according to the Hebrews writing in Babylon, God decided to drown the whole world because of the wickedness of man, with the exception of an ancestor of the authors of the flood story. My question is, why didn't God destroy Satan? Seems he would be the first to go???? Thanks.

satan is an eternal being just like your spirit/soul is an eternal existence. satan is someday cast into the lake of "fire" so your real question is "Why does God allow satan and the fallen angels to tempt humans rather than send satan and all of the other fallen angels into judgement now?"

Answer: I don't know exhaustively for certain what God's complete reasons are but I have ideas about it.

Martin Luther is well known for saying that "even the devil is God's devil." There is a place in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 13:1-3) which says "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,' 3you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.…"

I believe that this principle can apply to how God is proving/testing us in this temporary creation.... BUT it is much more complicated. Satan and demonic unclean spirits are often allowed to hold us in bondage - as a result of - or as a consequence of our sin and disobedience or the lies we believe or the pride that we are in bondage to. God allows "satan" to sometimes be part of the process of chastising Christians and/or tempting them and God also allows satan to manipulate unbelievers and deceive them without their knowledge. Most often the deceptions are piggybacked on the specific unbeliever's (or even believer's) own self-deceptions. (lies coupled with personal agendas)

The enemies of God and of God's holy angels and adopted children are allowed to be part of this world because they in some ways test and carry out the judgement of God.

Unbelievers/skeptics often complain..."if they exist then God is using them to do His dirty work" This is a crass blasphemous way to put it.... a more accurate way to say it is that God allows them use their freewill to accomplish His purposes but they operate within certain LOGICAL restrictions based on the obedience of the humans they are influencing or testing. God doesn't deceive... but God does indeed allow deception in multiple ways... including allowing a spirit to go and deceive (and it is described in the bible as God "sending" a deceiving spirit). There are multiple things there which get missed in concision.

It is God's holy right to test or to prove.... God does not tempt us, however, in the sense of trying to get us to sin like demons do. God "tempted" Abraham to test/prove him and demonstrate his faith but God testing a creature is a different concept from a fellow creature tempting a fellow creature (should be obvious if you understand the relationships).

 

[Colter]

satan is an eternal being just like your spirit/soul is an eternal existence. satan is someday cast into the lake of "fire" so your real question is "Why does God allow satan and the fallen angels to tempt humans rather than send satan and all of the other fallen angels into judgement now?"

Answer: I don't know exhaustively for certain what God's complete reasons are but I have ideas about it.

Martin Luther is well known for saying that "even the devil is God's devil." There is a place in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 13:1-3) which says "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,' 3you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.…"

I believe that this principle can apply to how God is proving/testing us in this temporary creation.... BUT it is much more complicated. Satan and demonic unclean spirits are often allowed to hold us in bondage - as a result of - or as a consequence of our sin and disobedience or the lies we believe or the pride that we are in bondage to. God allows "satan" to sometimes be part of the process of chastising Christians and/or tempting them and God also allows satan to manipulate unbelievers and deceive them without their knowledge. Most often the deceptions are piggybacked on the specific unbeliever's (or even believer's) own self-deceptions. (lies coupled with personal agendas)

The enemies of God and of God's holy angels and adopted children are allowed to be part of this world because they in some ways test and carry out the judgement of God.

Unbelievers/skeptics often complain..."if they exist then God is using them to do His dirty work" This is a crass blasphemous way to put it.... a more accurate way to say it is that God allows them use their freewill to accomplish His purposes but they operate within certain LOGICAL restrictions based on the obedience of the humans they are influencing or testing. God doesn't deceive... but God does indeed allow deception in multiple ways... including allowing a spirit to go and deceive (and it is described in the bible as God "sending" a deceiving spirit). There are multiple things there which get missed in concision.

It is God's holy right to test or to prove.... God does not tempt us, however, in the sense of trying to get us to sin like demons do. God "tempted" Abraham to test/prove him and demonstrate his faith but God testing a creature is a different concept from a fellow creature tempting a fellow creature (should be obvious if you understand the relationships).

I've heard similar explanations before and it's a bad one.

Thanks though

 

[Ana the Ist]

Question, according to the Hebrews writing in Babylon, God decided to drown the whole world because of the wickedness of man, with the exception of an ancestor of the authors of the flood story. My question is, why didn't God destroy Satan? Seems he would be the first to go???? Thanks.

Good question. Perhaps he's sentimental but only towards non humans.

 

[Breckmin]

I've heard similar explanations before and it's a bad one.

Thanks though

Why is it a bad one? Everyone who drowns in the flood still exists in the afterlife just as satan does...

so God actually limits the future sin debt they would have accumulated and brings babies who have not
sinned to heaven.

 

[Breckmin]

Good question. Perhaps he's sentimental but only towards non humans.

But remember that God did not become a non human and die (suffer/self-sacrifice) for non humans (fallen angels).
He did not give any of the non-humans grace or mercy.

Question everything.

 

[Colter]

Why is it a bad one? Everyone who drowns in the flood still exists in the afterlife just as satan does...

so God actually limits the future sin debt they would have accumulated and brings babies who have not
sinned to heaven.

Your making excuses for terrible philosophy and contorted theology.

The first sign that the flood story is human is the authors characterization that God regretted something that he did. The vastly exaggerated flood legend was a literary devise used by the Hebrew priest attempting to trace their blood lines back to an Adam and Eve who had arrived on a previously populated, evolved earth. NO other culture on earth remembers being related to the Jews!!! But I digress.

Satan is not a God, and he was not an eternal being, he was simply a bright celestial administrator having been delegated powers and authority which he betrayed, rebelling against the rule of the unseen Father through his Son.

* People have adopted beliefs through erroneous religious teaching which cause them to blame Satan and demonic forces for their own behavior. Jesus said "Go and sin no more." Sin is to know what Gods will is yet deliberately choose error. Sin isn't an inheritance. Satan never could invade minds neither could so called demons invade healthy minds, only mentally unstable people. The rebel angels are gone as well.

* God is not both good and evil, God is not a house divided, he does not have a divided will.

* There was a time lag of Justice to allow Satan and the others to repent, he didn't and is now gone. Jesus defeated him in righteousness while on earth.

 

[Davian]

Your making excuses for terrible philosophy and contorted theology.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Lol right?

 

[Breckmin]

Your making excuses for terrible philosophy and contorted theology.

Why would God somehow need "excuses" for either judging or ending a temporary state of what He owns and created?

Satan is not a God, and he was not an eternal being,

True. He was an angel who did not possess the characteristic of aseity but angels ARE eternal beings once they are created.

People have adopted beliefs through erroneous religious teaching which cause them to blame Satan and demonic forces for their own behavior.

Each person is responsible for their own freewill. Spiritual warfare does not mean you are innocent of your personal responsibility to obey God.

Jesus said "Go and sin no more." Sin is to know what Gods will is yet deliberately choose error. Sin isn't an inheritance.

Sin is clearly missing the mark of perfection...and disobeying God's precepts on any specific action for which there is a moral obligation TO God.. but the "inheritance" isn't of sin itself... but rather of a potential and sometime even disposition to WANT to commit an act of sin. That is a very important distinction.

Satan never could invade minds neither could so called demons invade healthy minds, only mentally unstable people.

What if it really isn't invasion but rather a consequence of bondage based on what the person beliefs or disbelieves with respect to Truth...and knowing the truth and being set free from the bondage of lies? Those who work in deliverance see the bondage of unclean deceiving spirits and their relationship to false beliefs as well as other factors.

The rebel angels are gone as well.

So God did not give them justice for their evil? Did God forgive them of their sin debt and annihilate them?
How can this be without atonement since Jesus did not die for angels?

God is not both good and evil, God is not a house divided, he does not have a divided will.

God is wholly good. The Standard for good. There is no schism within God with respect to good and moral evil.
Divine freewill is a little more complicated because of what God allows...but we would never claim that God has a divided will but rather that the English word "will" and the way in which we use it is inadequate and monolithic to accurately describe divine will in theology.

There was a time lag of Justice to allow Satan and the others to repent, he didn't and is now gone.

Why isn't justice logically eternal? With an eternally just God?

Jesus defeated him in righteousness while on earth.

True. Thanks for responding.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Excellent Question. (to which there is NO "simple" answer short of a book's worth of material)

The new nature doesn't guarantee that a person won't rape or kill because now the person will have two natures and the believer must decide between walking in the flesh (the old nature) and walking in the Spirit (the new nature). People have freewill. Now in heaven the old nature will be removed for the believer...so then there will no longer be and raping or killing
going on...because people will no longer have a "potential" to use their "ability" to sin. They might still have the ability to do something bad...but now like God they will never "want" to so they have no potential to abuse their ability/freewill.

So now the question gets pushed back to "Why doesn't God give everyone two natures...or why did God give anyone a nature which would want to rape or kill in the first place?" Answer: It's not that simple. God doesn't give everyone a evil or sinful nature...this nature is inherited as a logical consequence for sin because of sins corruption and God's justice. We might ask "Why does God have to be just?" and give inherited consequences as a result of sin and that would lead to a complicated discussion involving the doctrine of "original sin" and the various views of Federalism and Realism and particularly "neo-Federalism" which is slightly different from Federalism which is my personal view.

The bottom line is that you are basically asking "Why can't God just start with heaven?" or "Why doesn't God just save everybody?" Well the reality is that if everyone is saved then no one is saved because the word saved becomes meaningless in that there would be no opposite condition in eternity to point to to actually be saved "from." Somebody has to go to hell in eternity to make hell real or to make "salvation" and "grace" meaningful terms...otherwise the end result is just inevitable fate. Inevitable fate doesn't help remove the potential for future sin in heaven.... but incredible grace and election does...and so does self-sacrificing love.....and seeing what incredible love God has for His adopted children...and so does observing the consequences of sin... and so does forgiveness...and so does rescuing someone create loyalty in them. By the way, no one "deserves" to have the Holy Creator living inside them and fellowshipping with them forever...and this truth will not be hidden in eternity. Part of this multifaceted answer is that the TRUTH will not be hidden for all of eternity on all sorts of issues involving what we do and don't deserve. God maximizes God's glory by starting with a temporary creation in order to Glorify Himself in a symmetrical afterlife. To isolate and say it is "all about God's glory" would be of course wrong since this would ignore the glory of angels and adopted children who share in His glory.

So the first question, "Why can't God just start with heaven?" is the big one... and that involves the REAL problem of evil... not in explaining "why there is evil" but rather in explaining how freewill is a danger to the creature "because of" the absolute Holiness and Justice of God. It indeed comes back to freewill and the ability to spiritually kill yourself (separate you from God's affectionate fellowship) and the later new heaven and new earth) for all of eternity because God is perfect and holy and will not fellowship with what is spiritually "tainted."

So your asking a very big question... one that does not have a simple answer but rather has a very large multifaceted answer which connects the glory of God the Father and the glory of Christ (Who is the Man God became)to the glory of angels to the glory of adopted children to the glory of God displaying His holiness and His justice. It's a big answer because it is directly related to a very large multifaceted comprehensive theodicy which addresses the necessity of learning through experience (and/or observing consequences of others' experience) to the necessity of contrasts (good/evil, pain/pleasure, suffering/joy, forgiveness/non-forgiveness,etc). There is a plan for angels and a plan for humans. It is not equal...and there is no such observation of anything "equal" in the universe. (no two people with exact same circumstances).

For humans - God starts with a temporary creation (the one we are in) so that God is fully glorified in a symmetrical afterlife (even if there are many more in one place than the other - 1 person going to justice is no worse than 2... nor worse 10 no worse than 50 or a hundred billion because who is to say who is the one who is necessary. If fallen angels can go to eternal justice then why not humans?).

For angels - God allows some angels to observe the consequences other angels and learn from it to remove their potential as they grow and love and glorify God and see God's incredible grace to Christians... and God allows other angels/demons to suffer (be given)perfect justice with no plan for salvation. If you don't understand the "rightness" of this then you don't understand the Holiness of God.

There is nothing wrong with justice once you understand how it is connected to God's righteousness...and the RIGHTNESS of consequences and punishment for sin...and just as importantly "how sin *taints* the creature (angel or human) in the relationship to a Holy God" and God's logical characteristics of Holiness to not fellowship with that which is morally tainted. Now you might say in response that you know plenty of Christians who are morally tainted...but that is because you are not seeing that there eternal spirits have been given perfection through Jesus' substitutionary death and atonement for their "taintness." God gives Christians a new nature. Well, how do they get this new nature? Answer: from God's Holy Spirit by God's incredible grace to them through their faith (ultimately given to them by God). God allows all circumstances.

Some people in different circumstances are more apt to be more humble that others, and others are more in need and more open to a relationship with God. That is often why young children are more open to the gospel or more people who are in need (the poor) are open to the gospel and there are also specific people who sometimes have dramatic intervention in their lives. Why doesn't God do it to everybody? (back to an earlier answer..then there would be no salvation ...just inevitable fate and no demonstration of consequences to add to the loyalty (removing the potential for future sin) of those who are redeemed.... as well as many many other things which we are not going to be able to mention unless I write a book right here on the spot. For instance, there is something about the quality of relationship that comes from restoration an forgiveness. This doesn't happen for angels but it DOES happen for God's adopted children (believers).

The scripture teaches that no one is able to become a Christian and get this new nature unless it is a gift that is given to them by the Father. This falls under the category of what is known as God's election. It's not equal...but there is no such thing as equal circumstances in this universe (to appeal to as a basis for "fairness") to use in it objection to God. No one is able to come to Jesus unless it is given to Him by God the Father.

So the question then becomes, "why doesn't God create creatures without freewill?" Why would God create some creatures with an ability that is a "danger" to them because of His absolute Holiness and Perfection?

We often say that love is the greatest ethic which should be allowed to exist in this universe. God should be allowed to create creatures in His conscious spiritual Image so that love from the creature can exist. You can't love God if you can't self generate. You can't love God if you don't have the ability to withhold it. You can't agree with God if you don't have the ability to disagree (disagreeing will eternally taint you). You can't say yes if you can't say no. You can't obey God if you don't have the ability to disobey God. Ability and potential are two distinct things.... and very important things to understand how you can have ability without potential. You can have an ability but never use it because you have no potential to use it because you would never "want" to use it. The quality of relationship that comes from restoration and forgiveness is one of many things which creates logical loyalty and removes (eternal) potential to misuse your ability. When you truly love God... and then you have the old nature [of the bondage of sin removed] (the ball and chain of the disposition to want to sin and be selfish) then you have eternal logical obedience, etc.

One thing that is very important here is Jesus Christ... the Man that God became. The glory of Jesus Christ to have the perfect gift of His bride (all believers) given to Him from/by God the Father as a result of Jesus paying the price for their sin is what makes creating people in God's conscious spiritual Image with the ability to love and yet sin and need to be saved a perfect thing to do. IOW, love's existence warrants it. (elliptical and imperfectly stated) It warrants the necessity of freewill to exist so that love can exist. If freewill doesn't exist then you have no love from creatures, no genuine relationships from creatures, no logical ability of true self-generated obedience from creatures...and no logical genuine worship from Creatures.
If you wrongfully isolate and say that this is "all about everybody worshiping God" then you are missing the glory of the other things listed (holy angels, Christians, truth will not be hidden, etc.



A new nature alone that includes freewill doesn't necessarily work without other factors. (loyalty, inclinations, experiences, relationship, etc)

I believe just changing someone's nature when they have freewill doesn't guarantee the elimination of potential sin in eternity. I believe WE humans need "more." That is what this temporary creation is all about.... beginning point to create a symmetrical eternity which maximizes God's glory and the Glory of Jesus Christ (God the Son) and prepares a Bride (the invisible church -kingdom of God in the hearts of men) and proclaims the truth of God's glory so that nothing is hidden for all of eternity. Decisions are distinct from natures. A nature is only part of the impetus for a morally logical decision.

Good stuff...even if I was indeed "all over the place."

Question everything. Question why you wouldn't want to be part of the glory of the gift of God to Jesus Christ rather than the glory of God justice against sin (your sin...your objective guilty of God's precepts).

I've read this 4 times now and I still don't know where to begin with my response. Perhaps you could narrow your post down to just one concept, and then elaborate on that? If I try to reply to this...my response will be just as jumbled as your post.

 

[Breckmin]

Perhaps you could narrow your post down to just one concept, and then elaborate on that?

If I isolate on one concept then I will be missing how all the concepts are connected and dependent upon each other...