rkwright Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 This might have been covered somewhere already here, but I'll ask anyways. I'm writing a paper comparing two author's solution to the problem of evil, and one holds to Divine Sovereignty so much that I feel he has killed any real free will. In the end he concluded that God would create the damned in order to be an example for the good, a conclusion I could not hold to (something that sounds a little too close to double predestination to me). I wish I could post his whole article, though I can't find it online and don't really have time to type it all... How is God completely sovereign yet without leading the result above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted April 11, 2006 Author Share Posted April 11, 2006 ok I'm terribly sorry, some how this got posted like 8 times, but this is the only one with the actual question in it!! so sorry! if the mods get a hold can they delete the other ones?? It won't let me delete 'my post' since theres no post in them.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 [quote name='rkwright' date='Apr 11 2006, 11:32 AM']This might have been covered somewhere already here, but I'll ask anyways. I'm writing a paper comparing two author's solution to the problem of evil, and one holds to Divine Sovereignty so much that I feel he has killed any real free will. In the end he concluded that God would create the damned in order to be an example for the good, a conclusion I could not hold to (something that sounds a little too close to double predestination to me). I wish I could post his whole article, though I can't find it online and don't really have time to type it all... How is God completely sovereign yet without leading the result above? [right][snapback]943305[/snapback][/right] [/quote] God is mystery. God predestines the elect, but does not predestine the damned because God desires all men to be saved and forces no one to choose hell. Because of this doctrine we can rightly say that man has free will to choose God or to choose not God. By God's foreknowledge (Romans 8:28-30), knowing already what we will choose, God predestines. God's predestination does not negate our free will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azriel Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 All redundant topics deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted April 11, 2006 Author Share Posted April 11, 2006 [quote name='Azriel' date='Apr 11 2006, 10:12 AM']All redundant topics deleted. [right][snapback]943352[/snapback][/right] [/quote] thank you Bro. Adam, I agree completely, and thus I reject the author I was speaking of. Yet the bottom question and question of the topic remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I thought I was pretty clear. What is left in question specifically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted April 11, 2006 Author Share Posted April 11, 2006 How is God completely sovereign yet free will intact. Note there is a difference between God's sovereignty and his foreknowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 I don't see how sovereignty in any way impedes mans free will. A king may be sovereign over his kingdom, but the people can still revolt. That doesn't mean they will win, but they can take action against the king. The lucifer clearly had free will in defying God. I guess you would have to prove how supreme rule and authority would negate free will in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Dare We Hope (All Men be Saved) might be a good book to study on the subject. It is by Hans Urs von Balthasar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 If God is sovereign, why can't he sovereignly decide to give man free will? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC IMaGiNaZUN Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 11 2006, 06:07 PM']If God is sovereign, why can't he sovereignly decide to give man free will? [right][snapback]943979[/snapback][/right] [/quote] and once more... If God is so omnipotent... How can he not give man free will... While being so omniscient, as to be able to know (although not [b]cause[/b] it). Edited April 12, 2006 by MC IMaGiNaZUN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted April 12, 2006 Author Share Posted April 12, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Apr 11 2006, 07:05 PM']I don't see how sovereignty in any way impedes mans free will. A king may be sovereign over his kingdom, but the people can still revolt. That doesn't mean they will win, but they can take action against the king. The lucifer clearly had free will in defying God. I guess you would have to prove how supreme rule and authority would negate free will in any way. [right][snapback]943977[/snapback][/right] [/quote] [quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 11 2006, 07:07 PM']If God is sovereign, why can't he sovereignly decide to give man free will? [right][snapback]943979[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Could you two expand a bit? I do agree with you, but in writing this paper and taking a stance against the author who limits human freedom I might need more. To play Devil's Advocate... This is how the author presents it Complete Divine Sovereignty would mean that God is in control of everything, every action can be attributed to God from creation. Including a 'sinful' action. Anything less would be a lesser god. Of course the author takes a turn and defines sin not as the action but the intent, for an example take if Smith where to shoot Jones. We would not say the death of Jones is the sin, for if Jones were to be shot but yet not die, or the bullet miss, we would still say Smith has committed a sin. So in order to keep God from being 'sinful' the sin isn't actually in the action, its in the intent. My initial gut level reaction is something like Augustine's when he asks How can we will happiness yet not be happy. How can Smith not will to shoot Jones yet still shoot him... I find the author's version clinging a bit too tightly to divine sovereignty at the expense of human freedom. Towards the end of the article the author winds up with the conclusion that because God is in complete control, He is still somewhat responsible for the damned's actions. Yet God would allow this to serve as an example to others on what not to do. At this point I've got warning bells going off in my head seeing major problems in this theodicy of sin and this version of free will. I throw all this out there because the author of this article happens to be my prof in the class I'm writing my paper for, and I want to have a decent response to not only his shortcomings, but also how God is still completely in control with Human autonomy respected. Edited April 12, 2006 by rkwright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 [quote name='rkwright' date='Apr 12 2006, 12:05 AM']To play Devil's Advocate... This is how the author presents it Complete Divine Sovereignty would mean that God is in control of everything, every action can be attributed to God from creation. Including a 'sinful' action. Anything less would be a lesser god. Of course the author takes a turn and defines sin not as the action but the intent, for an example take if Smith where to shoot Jones. We would not say the death of Jones is the sin, for if Jones were to be shot but yet not die, or the bullet miss, we would still say Smith has committed a sin. So in order to keep God from being 'sinful' the sin isn't actually in the action, its in the intent.[right][snapback]944317[/snapback][/right] [/quote] 1) Some actions are intrinsically sinful, because they go against nature. Homosexual acts, for example. 2) By denying that God can sovereignly bestow free will upon man, you limit his sovereignty. Free will is contingent upon God's sovereign decision to bestow it; thus, even though it involves choice on our part, it does not limit God's sovereignty, because our ability to choose presupposes his granting of that ability. On the other hand, if God CAN'T bestow free will on man, that means God is not free, and thus, is not sovereign. Could God have made robots, without the ability to choose? Of course. But he could also make creatures and let them choose, because he is sovereign. He can do whatever he wants. And he did. Why, in his sovereign wisdom, did he decide to give man free will, and not make a robot? Because a robot cannot love. Love is a personal choice, and only a person with free will can choose to love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted April 12, 2006 Author Share Posted April 12, 2006 Lemme try a fresh angle on it... [quote]We should not suppose, however, that in order for my decision to be free, I had to confer existence on it.... It is, however, a mistake to think we are able to confer existence on our own decisions and actions. For consider: If I conferred existence on my decision to write this paper, I had to do so either through a separate act, or as part of my very act of deciding. If it was through a separate act, then that act will become the focus of our concerns about freedom. To satisfy those concerns, we will have to require that it too derive its existence from something I did, and then we are headed for a vicious regress. So the first alternative will not do. But neither will the second. For until my act of deciding to write this paper is on hand, it cannot be a vehicle for my conferring existence on anything; and once it is on hand it already exists, so that any existence conferral must come too late. It is, then, impossible for us to confer existence on our own decisions and actions.... The only alternative, I think, is to hold that our decisions and actions, like ourselves and all else in the world, owe their existence entirely to the creative will of God, and are to be explained in terms of his purposes in creating us. [/quote] So from this view on our actions and will, it follows that God completely creates us in our actions and wills. From this it would follow that in the above example of Smith shooting Jones, the problem is only in the will not the action. Of course God being somewhat responsible for the will, being the creator which everything owes existence from, He would almost be responsible for the evil will or most certainly it seems evil action. The author dodges this one by saying that evil is only evil if compared to a higher authority. And since there is nothing higher than God, His actions, even ones that seem evil, cannot be. Later comes the question why create the evil actions at all? Why create at all? And thus double predestination. I can't stress enough that I don't agree with this, and I think Era has had some good points so far. I do think that evil is in more than just the will, and the action must be considered also, ie the homosexual act. This applies to any act, take Smith shooting Jones. If say Smith raised the gun and willed it to fire, yet then had a moment in which his conscience told him to stop, and he did, is it still a sin? I would say hardly, just a struggle in which good won. Again I think the classic Augustinian thought of happiness and the will still applies. However with the quoted passage regarding exitence of the decision and the will I don't see anything other than the conclusions the author draws. Any help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Walker Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 (edited) Double post problems... Edited April 12, 2006 by Desert Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now