Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[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.

It would seem that the best god then simply removes the "old nature" and replaces it with the new nature. This would be the starting point for his creation. Your god didn't do that.

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 question isn't, "why does god have to be just?"...the question is "is god just?" This is a really easy question to answer...and that answer is "no". Part of the concept of justice or being "just' is fairness/equity. Consequences fit the crime in a "just" system. A just judge is fair in dealing out punishment. Punishing someone for the sins of their ancient ancestors isn't just. Punishing someone for eternity for a finite crime/sin isn't fair. Why do you think god is just?

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."

Then you wouldn't call it "saved"...but whatever you would call it, it would be preferable to the system your god has created. After all, no one would need to suffer for eternity. Is that what you want? Do you want some to suffer for eternity so that you can call yourself "saved"? Wouldn't you prefer everyone make it to heaven?

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.

"Potential future sin in heaven"? Read your first two paragraphs again....you said there was no sin in heaven. You said people would no longer have the potential to sin in heaven. Do you see why I wanted you to try and rewrite this? You're contradicting yourself.

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."

As you already stated...god can remove this "tainted" nature and replace it with a new one. So, since god can do that, there's no reason we couldn't just start with heaven and skip this mortal life. Again, this is why you should've re-read what you wrote.

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).

So there's no learning in heaven? People never learn and grow as individuals? I would imagine that isn't what you think.. so why couldn't we start in heaven and learn everything there?

Also, think about the implications of this for Adam and Eve....if they needed to experience wrongdoing to learn what wrongdoing is....then it isn't really their fault they ate the fruit of the tree is it? It's not like they had anyone to observe this from.

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?).

It's not just. There's no justice in eternally punishing someone for a finite crime. Again, fairness is an aspect of justice. If we were to throw a child in jail for the rest of his life for stealing a candy bar...would you call that "just"? Why or why not?

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.

Fairness is essential to justice. To say that this doesn't apply to god is special pleading and nothing more. Imagine for a moment that god were a person and he judged people the way you imagine he does...would you call this person just? Of course you wouldn't. The fact that you're trying to bend the definition of justice for god shows you understand that he isn't just.

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.

On one hand you say that you have to have the ability to disobey god to obey him. On the other hand you say that you can enter a state where you can disobey god...but never want to. Why doesn't god simply create everyone so they have the ability but not the potential? We could all avoid hell then. One can only conclude that god wants some people to spend eternity in hell.

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).

If this isn't all about worshipping god...as you claim it isn't....why not create a way into heaven that doesn't require worshipping god? Why didn't he make it possible for his creations to avoid punishment without worshipping him?

The answer is rather obvious, isn't it? It is all about worshipping god...no matter how much he wants you to believe otherwise.

 

[Colter]

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




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



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



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.



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.



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 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.



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



True. Thanks for responding.

* I wouldn't say God needs excuses for first creating a world that looks old, but is said to be young, including a "crafty beast" that had already fallen, was already working against Gods will, thwarting mankind before is had even begun, condemning said beast, destroying mankind in frustration while keeping said beast to mess things up again right off the bat. No, I wouldn't question God in that narrative at all, I question the holy men who's speculation and conjecture lead to such an explanation in the first place!

* A being in Gods creation is potentially eternal unless it chooses otherwise. The unthinkable tragedy for us is that a trusted Son of God fell into sin and lead our world into default and confusion.

* I agree that the "meme" of Satan's rebellion lives on in our unsettled world, but sin would have been potential in human nature regardless of the fall of Satan, his compatriots or Eve and Adam. The Persian doctrines of original sin have contaminated our concepts.

* Their is no "sin debt", God has always been forgiving, not a supreme bookkeeper who delights in keeping erring entries on his children. God is God, man is man, our heavenly Father would expect growth through experience in a creation where imperfection was inevitable.

* In the original gospel that Jesus taught to the Jews, the gospel that they would be teaching the world today from Jerusalem had they not rejected the light, God was already forgiving, no Pagan sacrifices were needed.


* Its not rocket science, and it's only complicated because theologians are often left to rationalize the error or previous generations of holy men. In short, God doesn't work with an evil gimp-in-the box to execute his purposes. All sin contains within it the seeds of it's own destruction. It was in the wisdom of God to allow Satan the freedom of his unfortunate error contrasted with the better way, allowing all those who might side with Satan's ideological war in heaven to decide for themselves. Many more may have been lost to Satan's Atheist doctrines had he been summarily stopped.

 

[Breckmin]

It would seem that the best god then simply removes the "old nature" and replaces it with the new nature.

Any nature with true self-generating freewill still has the ability to freely choose. If one chooses to go against God in anyway, or chooses something not optimal... then it is missing the mark. A new nature alone does NOT remove the potential that we were talking about. Love, loyalty, desire, deterrence, etc are all PART of what removes the "potential" to ever misuse your ability. This is key. The new nature is accompanied (and not corrupted in the future) by relationship.

This would be the starting point for his creation.

Any "starting point" that you are referring to, however, would still be inchoate. A freewill creature is a work in progress... angels that miss out on restoration and forgiveness still behold what God did with humans.

Your god didn't do that.

The Creator is everyone's Creator. Different beliefs about the same Creator do not equal different gods. Islam,
Christianity and Judaism all believe in the same Creator... even if their worship is not accepted equally because
only true born-again Christianity has atonement for sin and Christ as an intercessor as to be able to fellowship with God and have your worship "acceptable" in His sight. The God of Abraham is not just my personal God.

The reason(s) God doesn't start out with heaven is because God is not willing to lose any single one of His adopted children in eternity. There is no universal Fatherhood here... that is an 18th Century false teaching... there are billions who do not embrace the Creator as their Heavenly Father because He isn't their Heavenly Father because they have/will reject Him.

The question isn't, "why does god have to be just?"...the question is "is god just?"

I understand that you are disputing the truth claims of Christianity... but you do see hopefully that it would be difficult to find a standard for "justice" greater than God to judge that God was not just. By what standard of cosmic justice would you appeal to to somehow judge God? (this is strictly parenthetical... since there are indeed co-justifications for God doing the perfectly "just" thing that we haven't talked about yet).

This is a really easy question to answer...and that answer is "no". Part of the concept of justice or being "just' is fairness/equity.

If you are already determined in your mind that a Holy Perfect God is unjust to punish sin (specific actions) then it would be difficult to proceed in explaining to you the philosophical justifications. Part of you seeing the perfect justice of God...is not allowing this to be an emotional appeal.... but rather a logical consistent philosophical understanding.

Consequences fit the crime in a "just" system. A just judge is fair in dealing out punishment.

Agreed, absolutely.

Punishing someone for the sins of their ancient ancestors isn't just.

God doesn't do this. Everyone is judged according to their own works.

Punishing someone for eternity for a finite crime/sin isn't fair. Why do you think god is just?

Because every sin is an eternal sin in multiple ways. First, these sins stay in the historical record from the temporary creation forever. Second, they are ultimately against an eternal God and Creator AND you are created in this eternal Creator's conscious and spiritual Image so YOU are a being who is eternal...you will not be annihilated (that would require forgiveness, btw). Third, when you sin against another person... you affect their eternity in some way. If you murder someone... you affect there eternity and send them into eternity when they would have continued living. If you rape someone, you affect their life in a way which will also affect their eternity and their rewards or works. If you lie, steal, hurt, abuse, etc. these all affect other peoples lives which has some effect on their eternity.

God is perfectly just because God knows the eternal nature of sin.... and God is absolutely Holy in His response TO moral evil. There is no such thing as a finite crime.

Then you wouldn't call it "saved"...but whatever you would call it, it would be preferable to the system your god has created.

Unless the truth of justice has a right to exist... or in other words "unless God has the right to proclaim the truth about justice in eternity and put justice on display for all to see."

Clearly it is preferable to receive grace as a guilty sinner rather than justice... but that doesn't make the system which contains justice somehow wrong.

After all, no one would need to suffer for eternity.

But someone has to receive justice in order for us to understand what "grace" or MERCY actually are. You can't have a system where grace is obligated.... or it isn't grace... it's justice. I believe that part of the problem here is entitlement... if someone believes that everyone going to "heaven" is justice... then there is no such thing as grace.

Is that what you want?

I could say that "If I were God, I would save everybody." And wish that this were true, however.... logic tells me that if everyone is saved... then no one is saved... because there is no real opposite condition in eternity to point to "to be saved FROM." This truth is important.
Somebody has to go to eternal justice. If it started with fallen angels... and then applies to guilty humans.... then what can I say? God, I disagree with your punishment of wickedness which violates your absolute Holiness because your ruling on the matter is perfectly just?? I can't disagree with justice.

Do you want some to suffer for eternity so that you can call yourself "saved"?

It's not just about having a word or having the concept of "salvation." That would be wrongful isolation of everything else that is connected to it. (The glory of God, the glory of Christ, the glory of angels, God's justice, etc.)
When I was a little boy and accepted Christ... I knew that it was perfectly just for God to throw me into hell and eternally separate me from the new heaven and new earth because of my sin. This was my very strong spiritual conviction.
I didn't want God's justice.... not that I believed that God was somehow "wrong" for punishing me for my wickedness.
This is key. If I didn't believe that I was guilty of eternal justice... then I wouldn't have needed a "Savior" to save me from my wickedness (in the sight of an absolutely Perfect and Holy God).

Wouldn't you prefer everyone make it to heaven?

Yes, of course... because I'm a fellow guilty sinner...and because I don't want people to ever suffer.... I want everyone else to be saved too... but I don't base theology or truth on what I want... this isn't my universe... and I'm not the Holy Creator and I have no reason to display justice... or have justice exist in this universe as a contrast of mercy/grace (which is not obligated).

"Potential future sin in heaven"? Read your first two paragraphs again....you said there was no sin in heaven.

The subject there was regarding a universal salvation which is just inevitable fate. I said, "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."

There won't be any sin in heaven because the "potential" for sin has been removed by "incredible grace and election, God demonstrating His self-sacrificing love, God's faithfulness to the believer, observing what we are save from, being forgiven, being rescued or saved from ourselves, etc all creates the loyalty and desire we need in heaven to remove such potential.
There is still more... such has the Holy Spirit of God living inside us... but that is because of how it all works together to create a perfected eternal child. You can't isolate the connected concepts away from each other like you did with "nature."

You said people would no longer have the potential to sin in heaven.

They won't.... because of this: ".....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."

Do you see why I wanted you to try and rewrite this? You're contradicting yourself.

There's no contradiction when you understand the two schemas of particular redemption and universal reconciliation.
With the latter, I believe the potential is not removed... with particular redemption... the potential IS removed.

People will have the "ability" to sin...but they will never ever use it... because the "potential" to ever sin has been removed.

This distinction between "ability" and "potential" is sine qua non in understanding divine freewill as well, btw.

 

[Breckmin]

As you already stated...god can remove this "tainted" nature and replace it with a new one. So, since god can do that, there's no reason we couldn't just start with heaven and skip this mortal life. Again, this is why you should've re-read what you wrote.

You are forgetting how moral evil is an inevitable byproduct of human freewill IF the potential is not removed.
The freewill human creature is inchoate when it comes to knowledge of His Creator... and how much the Creator loves the creature with self-sacrificing love, etc. There is more here than just disobedience... there is also the issue of "faith" and trust and how and why the finite creature should always TRUST the Infinite Creator... and how this fits into the relationship and particularly with the fall of humankind.

There IS a reason God couldn't start with heaven... God is not going to have a system where His children begin dropping out of heaven one by one due to their freewill... because of how freewill is a danger to them UNLESS the potential to abuse freewill is removed by a process (the temporary creation we are in now). We also can not ignore the glory of God becoming as One of His creation and dwelling among us (Jesus Christ). This is important also.

But back to the point about the tainted nature... something has to happen in order for the freewill creature not to taint it again. Consequences which must be observed are only part of the deterrent. It is much more complicated because with humans there are two natures... whereas with holy angels there is only one nature... and their nature was never corrupted (only those who fell were.... and they have no chance at salvation).

One of the complications here is to see the difference between the two sets of freewill creatures and how God deals with their freewill. Very important: freewill is a danger to the creature BECAUSE of the absolute Holiness of God AND the Justice of God to punish wickedness. This complication can't be ignored. If someone never had a tainted nature... then they would never know God's love (unless they observe it another way and angels do)... nor have the quality of relationship that "comes" from restoration and forgiveness (which only Christians have).

So there's no learning in heaven? People never learn and grow as individuals? I would imagine that isn't what you think.. so why couldn't we start in heaven and learn everything there?

How would you learn about evil... if there was no moral evil? How would you learn about suffering if there was no pain?
The necessity of contrast is important in order for you to understand that you are experiencing pleasure...or joy. Without ever seeing sadness or experiencing it... you wouldn't know what joy really is "experientially."

Yes, I believe there is learning in heaven.... we will learn more about what goes on THERE, etc. But the learning will NOT be done in a system where there are teenagers who want to rebel against authority. God is not about to have what takes place here in the temporary creation with rebellion be part of the experience of heaven.

Also, think about the implications of this for Adam and Eve....if they needed to experience wrongdoing to learn what wrongdoing is....then it isn't really their fault they ate the fruit of the tree is it? It's not like they had anyone to observe this from.

They had a moral conscience. Adam knew he as doing wrong... but Eve was deceived so she doesn't bear the responsibility.
(1 Tim. 2:14). Adam wasn't a moral baby... he was quite intelligent. Still, the inevitable potential byproduct of freewill was allowed to take place for God's purposes.... because it was necessary to remove future potential. Adam had absolute freewill. He was free to allow his love mate Eve to suffer her consequences alone... or even offer himself to take her punishment for her deception... etc. He could have "trusted" God in the situation with Eve.... but he had incredible love for Eve and chose to die with Eve rather than trust God. (in a sense he made an idol out of her). Belief and trust are extremely important for the adopted child's salvation today. There are more reasons connected to this. We are just barely scratching the surface here.
...

It's not just. There's no justice in eternally punishing someone for a finite crime. Again, fairness is an aspect of justice.

As I explained earlier... like it or not... all sins are eternal crimes... it is because of the "nature" of sin that it is eternal and how it affects people. Also important is to see the distinction between "separation" and "punishment."

Those who are separated are NOT punished equally... because they all have different levels of sin debt. The eternal afterlife for the unbeliever is eternal separation and UNEQUAL punishment based on your exact works.

Also, we can not ignore the absolute Holiness of God when it comes to spiritual fellowship with the cognitive freewill creature. Humans are eternal existences...created in the conscious and spiritual Image of God. They will exist forever...although only those in heaven will really "live" or experience life (with God's fellowship). This is extremely important in understanding the reason(s) for separation from the new heaven and new earth..and from God's affectionate fellowship (however, not from God's omnipresent self-existence).

If we were to throw a child in jail for the rest of his life for stealing a candy bar...would you call that "just"? Why or why not?

No. That punishment wouldn't fit the crime.... and also a "candy bar" doesn't corrupt the child before me and make them a danger to my other children.

But let's take this analogy and make it closer to what happens with sin. In the Bible, sin is continually compared to an infectious disease. So let's say I told the child not to steal the candy bar... and the candy bar contained a virus which required the child to be quarantined from other children? Now we are closer to what's really going on with the "corruption" of sin. You wouldn't allow a virus to enter into heaven to corrupt your own children.... what if the child was a disobedient servant and not one of your own children? (that needed to be quarantined?)

Not everyone is equally God's child. Universal Fatherhood of God is a recent corruption in theology. Only those who become adopted are truly God's children and God is their Heavenly Father (born-again Christians). Now IF a child corrupted themselves with a virus and that child needed to be in quarantine.... away from your own children... THEN we would have a more accurate analogy of what is going on with "not corrupting heaven with sin."

We may not like this... but moral evil is wickedness in the sight an of absolutely Holy and Perfect Creator... and it taints the freewill creature whereas God will not fellowship with such imperfection.

Perfection is needed to replace our imperfect sinful condition. That perfection is Jesus Christ. Go back to the top of this comment and apply the necessity of God becoming a Man and dying in our place to provide such perfection. The answer to your first objection is Jesus. Jesus could not/would not have been crucified if we started with heaven (like angels) and some people began falling into sin one by one...depending on the corruption. And, also... once again... we are just beginning to scratch the surface of how this is related to theodicy.

I welcome your questions as it relates to this... and how God is justified in allowing such an afterlife which results in symmetrical justice and grace.

 

[bhsmte]

What ever happened to the dude who started the thread? Is he by chance changing his handle again?

 

[Breckmin]

What ever happened to the dude who started the thread? Is he by chance changing his handle again?

How do you know the anonymous Christian who started this thread ever changed his handle? What was his handle before?

 

[Breckmin]

I have a question. Here in Oregon Bundy and Company have taken over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. He says God told him to do it. Personally, I have my doubts. But when I hear that God told someone to do something, which isn't all that uncommon to hear, how am I suppose to take that?

Christians who are "walking in the Spirit" are generally pacifists. Unless it is an immediate issue of self-defense or they are drafted into a war they generally would never take up arms against a government authority. Submitting to authority is part of being a believer (unless the authority tells you to do something directly contrary to scripture).

The people in who occupied a refuge near Burns, Oregon may believe what they are/were doing is constitutional.... but we as believers are called to a much higher calling than to take up arms against the corruption of bureaucracy of socialism or federalism.

In other words it violates a biblical/scriptural pattern. You don't see the disciples taking such a stand with weapons that would kill those whom they are spreading the gospel to. You DO sometimes have unclean deceiving spirits (or demons) deceive Christians into this type of activity. Militia groups such as the patriots or Christian Identity or other racist groups are plagued with demonic deceptions. It is highly more probable that IF a spiritual entity is telling them to use firearms to force a political issue... that it is not God.

Baptizing people, praying, reading your bible, fasting, singing songs of worship.... these types of things are the mark of a Christian walking in obedience (walking in the Spirit)... not occupying a refuge carrying firearms.

The Jesus followers I know would agree with you... that it is NOT God Who told them to do it.

 

[Breckmin]

If I move the glass on my table, then -according to your worldview- who or what is ultimately the first cause for the decision to move that glass? (Me? God? Something else?)

I didn't see where the anonymous philosopher answered this so I will address it.

In Reform theology they often have confusing language where they refer to "primary" and "secondary" causes as it relates to God's efficacious "decree" or God's sovereign "ordination" verses human freewill within the active scope of God's plan.

In your scenario, your decision to move the glass would be a "secondary" cause and God's sovereign decree would be the "primary cause" since in the Westminster confession and other confessions... God "ordains" all things (however "ordains" doesn't mean "causes" exactly so it is confusing).

I personally actually disagree with this use of the terms 'primary' and 'secondary' causes based on the foreknowledge and plan of God. I would say that the first cause is YOU... but God's foreknowledge and interaction with your first cause is His synergistic work in guiding all of human history.

In freewill, the compatiblists like myself believe that your cause for moving the glass across the table is "self-generated" or self-determined. It is because freewill is a completely different type of causal system than all other causal systems.... in that your decision originates with you. God's knowledge or foresight of your decision is based upon what you will self-generate so there is no contradiction between omniscience and freewill. This was exhaustively dealt with by both Thomas Aquinas and William of Ockham.... in demonstrating how there is no contradiction between God's exhaustive foreknowledge because it is dependent upon what you WILL someday choose, etc.

So with freewill the "first cause" is you... however this does not address your circumstances surrounding your decision... or the opportunity for your decision... or the degree to which your circumstances are actually infinite and how this plays into the compatibilism of freewill and God's absolute sovereign plan which is synergistic WITH your freewill.

God allows you to be the self-generating first cause...actual cause...act of your own self volition...etc. BUT God knew/knows that you will do it and it is part of His infinite plan. In order for God to have this level of foresight or foreknowledge... God must be either omnitemporal (everywhere in time) OR supratemporal (beyond the limitations of time and space). We wouldn't say, however, that God is somehow "outside of time." That would be a poor and I believe contradictory description. You would never have time set at zero for God... in any syllogism... rather you would have time equal to infinity if God is supratemporal or omnitemporal. Either way, this gives God the ability to be omniscient and know exhaustively what you will choose...and also guide (be in control of) all surrounding circumstances of your decision to move the glass across the table.

Key: God is "in control" of your circumstances and synergistically working all things along with your first cause (freewill) to move the glass... but God does not control you like a puppet...so the first cause is with you. The Reform systematic theologian may tell you that the primary cause is God and the secondary cause is yourself moving the glass... and that the point where the two causes meet is where the action takes place...but I believe that such a perspective is confusing because it misleads people into believing that the primary cause is the "first cause" when in their schema sometimes the primary and secondary causes are BOTH the first cause simultaneously. I know it is confusing...but that is because we are little creators in God's universe...and God is the One BIG Infinite Creator over all little creators He has created.

There is no other system like it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How do you know the anonymous Christian who started this thread ever changed his handle? What was his handle before?

Jeremy E Walker and Elioenai26.

 

[Breckmin]

Jeremy E Walker and Elioenai26.

I'm clueless here....as to the history of these usernames. What was the specific reason that Elioenai26 was ever banned?

Was Jeremy E Walker also banned? Why? (may I ask?) He seemed like a good contributor.

 

[Breckmin]

Re: Can God tell a lie?

I would make the distinction (of course) between ability and potential.

I saw this topic earlier in the thread. Of course God has the "ability" to construct an
untrue sentence... BUT God would never ever do this. One of God's attributes is TRUTH.

God is always perfectly truthful.... meaning that God does not Himself deceive or tell
any falsehoods. God may have the ability to throw someone into hell that is saved...BUT
God would never do such a thing so God has no "potential" to do such a thing.

God has no potential to lie... because God is a God of truth... so God will never lie.

God has the ability to lie...but never ever uses it.. nor would God want to ever use it.

Now there are two places in the scriptures which were brought up concerning this.

One was "God sending a deception" among people...and the other was God sending a
deceiving spirit. These passages are summaries from the prophet and elliptical in that
they are missing the process by which such action most probably occurred.

When God allows a deceiving spirit to do something...such spirit was already willing
and desiring to deceive. God allowing the deceiving spirit to use their freewill to deceive
someone is something that happens all the time daily (based on actions of sin in a person's
life and also other factors...too many to go into here). This can be summarized in concision
as God sending a deceiving spirit...but it doesn't mean that the real process wasn't more accurately just "God allowing it to take place" the way in which it most often takes place. No where does God Himself lie.

Now the other process of "God sending a deception" is also an elliptical summary which
misses the process. Deceptions are most often piggybacked on a person's own self-deception
and desire to believe. The beings that tempt people to believe these lies/deceptions are of course
demons (or unclean deceiving spirits). God allowing deceiving spirits to tempt people...OR
allowing people to use inductive reasoning (open to error and easily corrected by deductive
reasoning and current observation) to conclude something that is false... could be summed
up in concision by a prophet as "God sent a deception".... but it doesn't mean that God ever
lied.

This distinction is important because we have three enemies... the world (system) and its
false beliefs, the flesh and its rebellion against God and desires...AND the "devil" (unclean
deceiving spirits for most of the general population). God allows all three of these to
test (prove) us. I could say "God gave all three to us" but this summary would fail
to address the process of "how" these three things became my enemy... and the distinction
between what God "allowed" verses what God actually "caused" (none of them directly).

 

[bhsmte]

How do you know the anonymous Christian who started this thread ever changed his handle? What was his handle before?

Long history.

Lets just say, there exists evidence that this has occured.

 

[Breckmin]

Long history.

Lets just say, there exists evidence that this has occured.

Why was the person/handle/username ever banned?

 

[anonymous person]

I wonder where our self-proclaimed Christian philosopher has gone off to.

If you are referring to me, I am here.

 

[bhsmte]

Why was the person/handle/username ever banned?

That would be a question, for the moderators.

 

[quatona]

Is dishonesty objectively right?

 

[anonymous person]

You began this thread ostensibly for the purpose of answering questions posed to you. However, your responses to certain questions have been nothing but vague, and other questions have gone completely unanswered. First, I asked you about the importance of intellectual honesty in the pursuit of truth (1), and received no answer.

I think it is important.

Then I asked you whether you were open to be convinced on the question of Jesus' historicity (2). Again, I received no answer.

No I am not open. There is nothing to be open to. Jesus was a historical person.

Shortly thereafter, you claimed to have examined diverse religious claims with the "desire to be objective, honest, and open" (3). Curious about this, I inquired whether this meant you were open to questioning the authorship of scripture and the claims contained therein (4). To my surprise, you reported that you were (5). Moreover, you acknowledged fallibilism in relation to your religious beliefs (6, 7), in contrast to what you had earlier claimed (8).

As I harboured severe doubts about your intellectual honesty in this discourse (9), I took this as a positive sign that you had reflected on and modified your philosophical praxis. However, the evasiveness of your most recent responses to my question about appeals to personal religious experience, which tend to reflect a disposition you putatively no longer hold (10), suggests that some kernel of your old habit of thought remains intact. This would imply that, contrary to your earlier claims, you are not open to reconsidering or revising your theological commitments. This in turn raises the same question I posed earlier: in what way is your approach to these matters "objective, honest, and open"? How can one approach such questions honestly if one is not willing to accept the possibility of error or the need for conceptual revision?

Some things I am open to and some I am not. If that leads you to think I am not honest, objective or open then so be it.

 

[bhsmte]

I think it is important.



No I am not open. There is nothing to be open to. Jesus was a historical person.



Some things I am open to and some I am not. If that leads you to think I am not honest, objective or open then so be it.

How do you determine, to be "open" or not?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think it is important.

Based on your conduct to date, I have good reason to doubt that.

No I am not open. There is nothing to be open to. Jesus was a historical person.

Some things I am open to and some I am not. If that leads you to think I am not honest, objective or open then so be it.

If you think intellectual honesty is important in the pursuit of truth, then why wouldn't you approach that question openly? Also, why did you claim to be open if you aren't?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Given what is supposedly at stake in these matters, the way in which you know your beliefs to be true should be of utmost importance! If there really is a Satan who is trying to deceive you as a means of securing your damnation, then it is very important that you know you have acquired beliefs that are genuinely salvific, and not beliefs that you have honestly mistaken as salvific, but which would actually condemn to you Hell.