No disrespect intended to Mr.D
Doh! I just realized that I left my ol' bloggin buddy without a response from a comment he made a while ago. Sorry Mr. D! Here is what I think about things...
Back talkin' to Mr.D! Read it here!
You wrote a lot of great stuff, but you lost me on the first sentence of your question, "What if God started the works of the world going in one direction, but man and Satan started it going in another?" ... See, thats just it. God created man and the Earth (and presumably Satan). And God cast Satan here, no? And God created man with only so much ability to resist temptation. In my mind (my new mind anyhow), I don't see how those facts add up. Either God has definitions of goodness and fairness that are different than my own, ... no, I'll go further... they are nearly opposite my own. OR God has created a box that he cannot get out of in the name of Love. This second suggestion has far too many problems with it for me. First and foremost is that the Bible shows very clearly that He DOES escape the box on occasion, ... at will even. He intervenes when He wants and how He wants.
All my intellectual problems with Christianity start right at the beginning. Original Sin type issues.
I did find what you wrote about JFK, Huxley, and C.S. Lewis all dying on the same day pretty interesting. Never knew about that.
Back talkin' to Mr.D! Read it here!
You wrote a lot of great stuff, but you lost me on the first sentence of your question, "What if God started the works of the world going in one direction, but man and Satan started it going in another?" ... See, thats just it. God created man and the Earth (and presumably Satan). And God cast Satan here, no? And God created man with only so much ability to resist temptation. In my mind (my new mind anyhow), I don't see how those facts add up. Either God has definitions of goodness and fairness that are different than my own, ... no, I'll go further... they are nearly opposite my own. OR God has created a box that he cannot get out of in the name of Love. This second suggestion has far too many problems with it for me. First and foremost is that the Bible shows very clearly that He DOES escape the box on occasion, ... at will even. He intervenes when He wants and how He wants.
All my intellectual problems with Christianity start right at the beginning. Original Sin type issues.
I did find what you wrote about JFK, Huxley, and C.S. Lewis all dying on the same day pretty interesting. Never knew about that.
posted by Miroslav at 1:29 AM
11 Comments:
Miroslav,
You are not thinking this through well, or perhaps you do not see free will as I do. By definition, a God who creates any being with free will must exclude sovereignty. I am thinking of a comment somewhere in your blog where you decried the treatment of Muslim women in their bodily disfigurement by abominable men. Well you do! But is God responsible for them when he has given free will to men?
The dilemma seems a lot deeper than simply looking at what is wrong with the world- for surely there is a lot wrong with the world. If God chose to create men with the capacity for freewill, what is He to do with men who chose not to act godly or righteously? By definition, he has given them choice. If he were to null and void every despicable choice of errant man, the world would cease as we know it.
C.S. Lewis has an interesting passage on this very topic. I just reread it this week as I was thinking afresh about the issues you have raised:
It would, no doubt, have been possible for God to remove by miracle the results of the first sin committed by a human being; but this would not have been much good unless He was prepared to remove the results of the second sin, and of the third, and so on forever. If the miracles ceased, the sooner or later we might have reached our present lamentable situation: if they did not, then a world, thus continually underpropped and corrected by Divine interference, would have been a world in which nothing important ever depended on human choice, and in which choice itself would soon cease from the certainty that one of the apparent alternatives before you would lead to no results and was therefore not really an alternative. (The Problem of Pain, p. 71)
We can either have free will or not have it. If God were to unmake each of our sins, He would become a “robot” who was very busy- at least around me- and we would be locked forever in the state we are in. Instead, he chose to let things go wickedly the way they are without general reproof so that we might turn to him in trust. In trust we look forward to the time when we will no longer be slaves to sin, but made fully righteous.
Of course this argument in no way talks about the general evil of the cursed earth; rather it focuses only upon the “me”. But it is the “me” that you have frequently ascribed wonder at the lack of God interceding. It seems to me that there is nothing else that God could have done if He intended to allow our free will to continue.
Christ refers us to this, and I think I may have said it elsewhere, when He says “When the Son of Man returns will he find faith on the earth?” His question clearly implies that the world to which He returns will have great evil. I submit that that is the present state in which we find mankind. It is not at all the fault of God; it is the fault of stubborn and unrepentant men.
Pat
Again, we part ways at the BEGINNING of the argument.
You wrote, " By definition, a God who creates any being with free will must exclude sovereignty." I AGREE! ... but thats just the problem. Scripture does NOT exclude God's sovereignty by any stretch of the imagination! He DOES intervene. He hardens hearts, he performs SOME miracles, he gives grace to SOME. Others are created for dishonor.
Can't have it both ways.
So what are you saying? That God is responsible for all evil because he will not nullify free will? That I think you would agree is an absurd position.
He does intercede in rare times, and in certain areas. One of the areas He will not intercede in is a man's choice to follow him. All is kept free for man to choose. My father whom I have prayed for for 34 years, is still just as unsaved as he was the first day. God has called him many times, but will NOT violate my father's free will. He must trust to be saved, for there is no other way.
So the God who will not intercede where you think he should is a God of whom you evidently do not approve. But my question is: Who is the God in your speculation?
Just a thought.
Pat
May I join this conversation? Just for a quick minute.
I have a grandpa in the same situation as Mr. D's dad and have given these very ideas some deep thought in respect to him.
My friend Kathy from East Africa once explained Arminianism v. Calvinism in this way. The Arminian sees that God stands at the door and knocks. The Arminian must choose to answer the door or keep it shut.
The Calvinist hears God knocking at the door, and responds, "No thanks." The Holy Spirit slips in under the door and royally heats up the basement until the Calvinist is so uncomfortable and bloody hot that he simply must rip that door open.
Mr. D once told me he was not an Arminian nor a Calvinist, but a Biblicist.
I have come to see that that Calvin was closer to biblical thought than I ever noticed before (and closer than many of his followers have been since). Whether you read Calvin or not, the "doctrines of grace" are certainly in scripture, as are the doctrines of free will.
I for one am praying that God heats up the basement at my grandpa's house.
It looks like Mr. D is covering his dad from both perspectives – prayer and an appeal to free will. May the Lord save Mr. D's dad!
From Easy Chairs, Hard Words by Douglas Wilson
“…For some, the offense against logic is too great. They consider the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man to be irreconcilables. To resolve the problem, some say that God does not exercise His liberty in this way. Others resolve the problem by saying that man is not really responsible. Both accuse the one who wants to hold both positions in biblical balance of being illogical.
“How can there be [a logical problem with it]? We can have no logical problem when we do not have all the premises. And the Bible expressly says that we do not and cannot have them. In Deuteronomy 29:29, Psalm 139:1-6, Romans 9:20-21, and Romans 11:33-36. We do not have all the premises, and the problem of human freedom and divine sovereignty most certainly does not keep HIM up at nights.
“[This] means that there is not reason why we should feel forced to choose between two positions, when both are equally biblical….”
Mr. D,
"So what are you saying?" - I said that, by your words ("By definition, a God who creates any being with free will must exclude sovereignty") God contradicts himself! He IS a sovereign God in all areas. Thats the whole point of Romans 8 and 9! He calls the shots, some are "prepared for destruction" by HIS CHOICE, and has mercy on those that HE WILLS. "16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." ... and these verses are not talking about the means of salvation (ie. works vs. faith) ... they are talking about the fact that God has the right to be Sovereign in all issues. He is the potter and we the clay.
You wrote: "One of the areas He will not intercede in is a man's choice to follow him." - ... not true. Romans 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. ... also see the Bible's reference to "the Elect" and "the chosen." Israel did not choose God, He chose them. We are told then that we are "grafted in" in similar manner. We are saved by grace, through faith, which is a GIFT from God.
So yeah, its great for those "on the list" but for those who are not chosen, elect, or given the gift... well, lets just say that the weather forecast looks pretty dang HOT.
I mean really... come on, we can't really say that we can make sense of it all, can we?
What can you make of your father's situation when you look at the verses that talk about being called versus being CHOSEN. Scripturally, if one is not predestined to salvation, he will not find it.
That is when the definitions of love break down in my mind and heart. It all gets upside down.
Mama to 3 for now,
"“[This] means that there is not reason why we should feel forced to choose between two positions, when both are equally biblical….”" - True true true. I agree whole heartedly that both are Biblical messages. But it IS illogical to try to "hold the ideas in balance." They are contradictory truths(or at least seemingly contradictory to our human minds). It only becomes "logical" if your faith is thrown in to the mix. Its really that simple. And thats not a bad thing. The two concepts are, for as much as our human brain can make of them, at odds with one another. It need not be a deal breaker for one's faith though because what he says is true about not having all the premises. But that argument only makes sense if you faith to begin with. It is not a horrible thing to say that you trust God dispite the fact that you cannot understand Him. But if your inability to understand him grows and grows and grows so that the most basic tenants of your belief in Him are destroyed... well then... you have a problem.
What is missing in my brain is not the solution to this quandry, for there is none. I am missing what I was once so sure had been given to me... the "gift" of faith.
Miroslav,
I said it before,but at the risk of being boring, I will say it again. I would not want to believe in the doctrine of predestination that you are holding. It inevitably charges God with wickedness: He choses some for hell. No wonder your thinking is so scrambled.
There are so many more verses that show a God who gives himself for the world. Why ignore them? For instance you mentioned Romans 8 and 9, but neglected both the prior chapters and Romans 10. How shall they hear without a preacher? and How beautiful are the feet of those who carry the gospel.
If your simple picture were the whole truth, then I would not want to believe in that God either. But the truth is we serve a God of mercy, and Christ did die for all, that all might receive him. It is so much more complicated than to say there is a tsunamai that killed thousands; therefore I do not believe in God anymore.
I would commend to you the Problem of Pain. Lewis does an excellent job of laying out the problem and the solution.
Pat
To charge God with wickedness is to say that God is not God, that "is" is not.
Somebody get Bill Clinton over to this blog!
David,
You did mention extensively Romans earlier chapters- the theme of which may be summarized as all are without excuse. I did notice it, but neglected to mention it. Good scholarship!
Pat
David Porta, DDS,
LOL. One of my favorite Clinton quotes: "well... that depends on what your definition of is is."
Classic.
Mr. D,
I do intend on re-reading The Problem With Pain at your recommendation. Thanks!
Please don't misunderstand my position to be that Romans 8&9 summarize the entire message of the Bible or that they somehow paint the complete image of God or the gospel. I am fully aware of the numerous Scriptures that describe Him as merciful, longsuffering, and even that He "desires that all men would be saved." My intention in pointing out these verses is only to show why I have difficulty saying that the Bible's description of God is logical. I think it to be far too easy to focus on all the nice, pleasant, and palatable ideas in the Bible without looking at the fact that we are also told very difficult things about the very nature of God and His purposes.
You wrote, "...there is a tsunamai that killed thousands; therefore I do not believe in God anymore." I don't believe I've ever said anything like that. Just a reminder, I am not attempting to disprove God. Neither am I throwing my hands up in disgust with Him at the apparent conflicting truths held in the Bible. My faith disappeared slowly, and all of a sudden... and it was apart from anything I chose. I have yet to be "convinced" that God does not exist... I simply don't know. All my discussions here are simply resulting reflections from my heart now that my faith has been lost. They aren't arguments trying to disprove God's existence.
Miroslav,
I am sorry. I did not mean for you to think I was quoting you about the tsunamai- I was using it as an easy example of hard-to-explain wickedness.
I ache for your heart. Stay in there and fight it through! It has been an exasperation of mine- lifelong- to meet so many who do not balance the scripture. It is very easy to get off the main course. I did write a short piece on election and free will today.
Merry Christmas to you and yours!
Pat
Mr. D,
Gotcha! Tankyamuch for the clarification.
Now come on... you can't be saying that you write sumpthin and not show it to me! I'm hoping I'll see it in my email?
Post a Comment
<< Home