Kenny

I don’t think so. I did not say that God was inconceivable in the sense that we cannot make any positive assertions about God or know any positive facts about God. On the contrary, I explicitly denied such a position. There is a very big difference between saying that God is inconceivable and saying that God is incomprehensible. The former implies that it is impossible for us to even think positively about God whereas the later merely implies that our understanding will never be able to fully grasp God. It is the latter position to which I hold, and I believe that it is this position which is beautifully captured in Anselm’s definition of God as that which none greater than can be conceived. We do understand many of God’s positive great-making characteristics, but our understanding will never truly rise to a compressive understanding of God is in His full greatness.

God Bless,
Kenny

Kenny

Interesting. Actually, my experience has been that most protestants, at the popular level at least, do hold a view that God is timeless or at least in some sense transcends time, though, in protestant academic circles this position seems to be becoming less popular. Of course the most extreme denial of God’s independence from time comes by way of process theology which has taken its foothold primarily in liberal protestant circles. I am uncertain as to how these theological winds are affecting the air currents in the Catholic part of the world, however.

Well, that’s not a debate I really want to get sucked into right now as it is quite a digression from the original topic and I’m lacking for time already, but I will make a few brief comments here.


I don’t think fallen human beings are capable of redeeming themselves through their own efforts. That is why the incarnation and Christ’s atonement was necessary for our salvation, and why our salvation is wholly dependent on God’s grace.

I think that part of the moral superiority of this possible world to a possible world in which there is no evil is to be found in the fact that, through Christ’s atonement, certain attributes of God such as His justice, His mercy, and His deep self-giving sacrificial love are manifested in such a way that they could not have been otherwise. The manifestation of God’s attributes in this way requires that there really be a process of redemption and an atonement, not just some shame creation of the state that would follow this process, but without its being really preceded by it.

But, I think that is all I will say with respect to that topic for now.

God Bless,
Kenny

Kenny

It is a common misconception, both inside and outside Christian circles, that Calvinism entails the denial of free will in any meaningful sense. It does entail the denial of certain conceptions of free will (such as extreme libertarian conceptions), but not all conceptions. Many Calvinists hold to some form of compatibilism just as I do. Since it is an essential part of a Christian worldview that human beings are morally responsible for their actions, that human beings have some form of meaningful free will also seems to be essential to a coherent Christian understanding.

I do hold to a Calvinistic sorteriology (though I also continue to wrestle with these issues) in that I believe that, due to the impact of original sin on our character, it is impossible for human beings to freely choose to respond favorably to God unless God provides an additional influence of Grace (beyond the grace that He already gives to all people) that overcomes our propensity away from God. If God does provide that influence, then it is certain that the one being influenced will respond favorably, and that they will do so freely, because God’s grace will make it unmistakably clear to them the ugliness of the state that they are currently in and the beauty of God and the relationship which He is offering to them in such a way that God’s offer becomes too attractive to refuse. In other words, God does not force us to come to Him against our will. His grace makes us willing to come.

That being said, however, I think the conception of free will I have laid out here is also compatible with a non-Calvinistic sorteriology, so this debate cannot just be settled by coming to a proper understanding of what free will entails. It has to be settled on the basis of Scripture, and that’s another long debate which is off the current topic.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]

edited again for spelling (darn spell checker doesn't recognize words like "sorteriology" ) and the fact that I wrote "His" at one place, where I meant "our"

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

Kenny:

Free will to you seems to require simply a lack of outside-agent coercion, and some activity of character and volition. Is that accurate?

"I don’t think that God’s decisions depend on contingent stimuli, but I also don’t think that such is a necessary requirement for free will."

It seems hard or impossible for us to understand God's free will at all. God's decisions cannot be completely divorced from contingent stimuli if they're free, because then He would never be reacting to anything. His decisions would occur at the same time as what led Him to these decisions, if His decisions are based in any way on reality. This just doesn't make any sense. Free will seems to require that we make our decisions based on some kind of stimulus, rather than simultaneously to when the stimulus occurs.

"If you were to maintain that God cannot bring it about that 'Thomas brings it about that Thomas learns without any other agent being directly or indirectly causally involved,' then I do not think that you have presented a logically consistent soa, at least not on theistic metaphysics, since on theistic metaphysics there are no possible worlds which are entirely causally independent of God’s actions."

I have presented my current thoughts in the thread "Does God Pass the Maximal Power Test?" I would hope you could take a look at it if you get the chance. But as for this point, I don't even require that it be completely causally independent. I would just say God can't bring about "Someone or other learns without being caused to learn by the active choice of an outside agent."

And as for bringing about certain internally consistent states of affairs containing horrendous evil, I think this is another limitation on God's soa-omnipotence. God is unable to bring about certain logically possible states of affairs -- and if they're not logically possible, that's only because of self-imposed limitations by God.

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Metcalf ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

Philosoft,


I was wondering the same thing.

And I'm having trouble visualizing the mental gymnastics that doubtlessly accompany such a blithe assertion that there are incongruities between the "NT and OT Gods". Looks like we're even, then. However, since you are the first one to have offered the results of their mental gymnastics for public consumption, I would think you should also be the first one to offer at the least some examples of those supposed "incongruities". Otherwise, am I supposed to go through all the possible incongruities that I think you might be thinking of, and address them in order, hoping I didn't miss the ones causing you the most concern?

Tit for tat. You make an unsupported blanket assertion about supposed "incongruities" in the Bible, and I offer blanket assertions as a rebuttal. Sounds fair to me. Now, if you want to complain about blanket assertions, then stop making them in the first place.

In Christ,

Douglas

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>