Philosophy question

[JonF]

This is something I’ve been pondering for awhile…

What about God is un-necessarily actual and what is necessary.

Right now I feel most of the Omni’s (Omnipotence Omniscience etc etc) are necessary, with the exception of ones like benevolence which I would say is only actual.

I think actions God undertook are actual but not necessary, including God’s plan for salvation and creation.

 

[Wisdom's Child]

Actual vs. Necessary???
You mean to imply that there are some aspects of God which are necessary to believe even though they may not actually exist?
I don't understand...

 

[ReformedChapin]

me am lost

 

[Bulldog]

This is something I’ve been pondering for awhile…

What about God is actual and what is necessary.

Right now I feel most of the Omni’s are necessary, with the exception of ones like benevolence which I would say is actual.

I think actions God undertook are actual, including God’s plan for salvation and creation.

Your terms are a bit confusing - I think you're speaking of things that are necessarily actual and things that are unecessarily actual, but still actual.

 

[christianmomof3]

What is an Omni? What do you mean by actual and necessary? What exactly is the question here?

 

[JonF]

Your terms are a bit confusing - I think you're speaking of things that are necessarily actual and things that are unecessarily actual, but still actual.

Yup that’s it. Sorry guys I was being a little lose with my terms (was being distracted when I purposed my ill worded question.) I was actually thinking about this because I had to make reference to Kant’s categories for something else. Proposition’s fall into three categories, problematic, actual, and necessary. Simplified: problematic means something could be, actual means it is, and necessary means it must be. If something is actual, it is also problematic. If something is necessary it is also actual.

For example:
It is problematic I tomorrow I will drive into town.

I actually am wearing a blue shirt right now; I don’t necessarily have to wear a blue shirt.

I in actuality need glasses to see. I don’t necessarily need glasses to see.

A dog is necessarily a mammal.

If X is a proposition, it is necessary the proposition: X or it is not the case of X, is true.

So my question is what qualities about God that we as Christians talk about fall into which category.

For example; is God necessarily forgiving, or is he just actually forgiving?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I still wondering if Adam had a navel.

 

[mike1reynolds]

Well, since the definition of problematic involves uncertainty and the definition of the other two terms does not, you’d get a debate over whether salvation is “problematic” or “actual” from various factions.

 

[JonF]

Well, since the definition of problematic involves uncertainty and the definition of the other two terms does not, you’d get a debate over whether salvation is “problematic” or “actual” from various factions.

These terms are applied to existence and actuality. To say salvation is “problematic” means that it is possible that it is the case that salvation does, and doesn’t exist.

 

[mike1reynolds]

These terms are applied to existence and actuality. To say salvation is “problematic” means that it is possible that it is the case that salvation does, and doesn’t exist.

For a particular individual it may or may not exist. Salvation as a whole is obviously "necessary" under any context...

 

[JonF]

yup but salvation as a particular wrt a person is easy, what about in of it self?

 

[mike1reynolds]

I touched on this on the Gödel's theorem thread. This view is not that of any denomination of course, it is just my opinion from science, but I think that God continually intervenes in a time stream. God is not bound by time and He can send angels and souls to any time He wants. To begin with none are saved and nothing in that time stream is real, it is all a nightmarish dream with no incarnate souls. So God’s first task is to get the time stream improved sufficiently to where souls even show up, even if they are all doomed. But they aren’t doomed really, because God will keep rolling back the time stream and improving it until a critical mass of salvation is reached.

The first time the critical mass is reached will be by the narrowest margin and against the most titanic opposition. The dark side, not use to loosing, will still be giving it their all. After their loss has become a certainty they will just run away, and as God rolls back the time stream and improves it more, salvation in that time stream will quickly become more of a walk-through. So if you assume that God is not bound by time then salvation is ultimately assured, but it may not be this time around if you don’t try hard enough. So salvation would still be both necessary and problematic, depending on the context.

 

[JonF]

I touched on this on the Gödel's theorem thread. This view is not that of any denomination of course, it is just my opinion from science, but I think that God continually intervenes in a time stream. God is not bound by time and He can send angels and souls to any time He wants. To begin with none are saved and nothing in that time stream is real, it is all a nightmarish dream with no incarnate souls. So God’s first task is to get the time stream improved sufficiently to where souls even show up, even if they are all doomed. But they aren’t doomed really, because God will keep rolling back the time stream and improving it until a critical mass of salvation is reached.

The first time the critical mass is reached will be by the narrowest margin and against the most titanic opposition. The dark side, not use to loosing, will still be giving it their all. After their loss has become a certainty they will just run away, and as God rolls back the time stream and improves it more, salvation in that time stream will quickly become more of a walk-through. So if you assume that God is not bound by time then salvation is ultimately assured, but it may not be this time around if you don’t try hard enough. So salvation would still be both necessary and problematic, depending on the context.

any biblical support for this, or is it all conjecture?

 

[mike1reynolds]

The Biblical arguments are on both sides of the free will vs. predestination debates. Both sides can draw on Biblical support because it is not a case where one or the other is true. They are both true according to the Bible. The Bible doesn't really account for how both could be true at the same time, so I can't provide Biblical support for my specific assertions that do account for both, but clearly there must be some means to account for the fact that the Bible says that both are true.

 

[JonF]

The Biblical arguments are on both sides of the free will vs. predestination debates. Both sides can draw on Biblical support because it is not a case where one or the other is true. They are both true according to the Bible. The Bible doesn't really account for how both could be true at the same time, so I can't provide Biblical support for my specific assertions that do account for both, but clearly there must be some means to account for the fact that the Bible says that both are true.

i disagree that both are true

 

[mike1reynolds]

Which do you disbelieve in, free will or predestination?

 

[JonF]

Actually it depends on what you mean by “free will”. But i believe in predestination.

 

[mike1reynolds]

I think that everyone who believes in free will also believes in predestination, especially since open theism is anathema around here, making it virtually guaranteed to be the case. So it would be disbelief in the relevance of free will to salvation that would distinguish your views from other denominations. Salvation by faith alone is clearly contradicted by Matthew 7:21-23, but the anti-free will argument generally rests on asserting that works will follow automatically from true salvation. This seems to me to deny that you must work to earn favor with God just as Jesus did:[bible]Luke 2:52[/bible]

 

[JonF]

I think that everyone who believes in free will also believes in predestination, especially since open theism is anathema around here, making it virtually guaranteed to be the case. So it would be disbelief in the relevance of free will to salvation that would distinguish your views from other denominations. Salvation by faith alone is clearly contradicted by Matthew 7:21-23, but the anti-free will argument generally rests on asserting that works will follow automatically from true salvation. This seems to me to deny that you must work to earn favor with God just as Jesus did:[bible]Luke 2:52[/bible]

The only thing that is explicitly stated in Matthew 7:21-23 is that they have faith in Jesus' power. This is not the faith in Christ the bible mentions.

Still, what exactly do you mean by free will?

 

[mike1reynolds]

The only thing that is explicitly stated in Matthew 7:21-23 is that they have faith in Jesus' power. This is not the faith in Christ the bible mentions.

He doesn't say that faith is lacking in these people, He specifically says that they didn't do God's will. Faith is a state of mind, not an action.[bible]Matthew 7:21[/bible]

Still, what exactly do you mean by free will?

That you can not only earn favor with God, but disfavor. You have to be constantly vigilant with yourself in order to keep in God’s favor. Unless one is sinless we must always be on guard for when we might stray and fall short in thoughtfulness and selflessness. If you stray from this knowing what the stakes are then the consequences are harsher than if you stray from this as an unbeliever, but even many unbelievers do not stray from this, so it must be required of believers.