Soteriological Reductio Ad Absurdum

Originally posted by divegeester
Free will of the creation is still possible withing the construct of a creator being who is all powerful and all knowing.

That depends on the definitions of the words involved. Anyway, you may take it up with rwingett, I was merely pointing out that you had misunderstood his post.

Originally posted by rwingett
It has long been my position that free will is an impossibility in conjunction with an omnipotent and omniscient god and that everything that happens in this world is necessarily what god intended all along. Satan is on god's payroll, so to speak.

Not sure what your point is with regard to distributive justice, though.

"As a challenge to theism, the problem of evil has traditionally been posed in the form of a dilemma; if God is perfectly loving, he must wish to abolish evil; and if he is all-powerful, he must be able to abolish evil. But evil exists; therefore God cannot be both omnipotent and perfectly loving." (John Hick)

Human freewill i think is a theist's way or providing (or so they believe) a "morally sufficient reason" for a perfect God to have created or allowed evil in a good creation. Take away the 'freewill argument' and the dilemma put forward by Hick would simply break Christianity in two.

Originally posted by divegeester
Free will of the creation is still possible withing the construct of a creator being who is all powerful and all knowing.

I disagree. Free will is an impossibility in conjunction with an omnipotent and omniscient god. If God is truly omniscient, he would have necessarily foreseen the choices every one of his creations would ever make, and he would have gauged all their ensuing effects. As all those choices exist in a chain of cause and effect going back to the initial set of conditions that God set out, it therefore follows that everything that happens is exactly what God planned all along. In other words, you cannot do anything that God has not foreseen and, in fact, has caused to happen. That mankind would turn out the way they have was within God's knowledge from the very beginning. If God wanted different results, he could have altered his starting input to produce any result he wanted. The fact that he went with that particular set of conditions demonstrates that mankind behaves exactly as God intended. Indeed, he could not have done otherwise.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Take away the 'freewill argument' and the dilemma put forward by Hick would simply break Christianity in two.

Given that the free will argument is a complete flop, I think you can safely consider Christianity broken. Now what?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
"As a challenge to theism, the problem of evil has traditionally been posed in the form of a dilemma; if God is perfectly loving, he must wish to abolish evil; and if he is all-powerful, he must be able to abolish evil. But evil exists; therefore God cannot be both omnipotent and perfectly loving." (John Hick)

Human freewill i think is a theist's ...[text shortened]... 'freewill argument' and the dilemma put forward by Hick would simply break Christianity in two.

Our will is not enough to do break a free will argument, in my opinion the fact that there is
a right way to act and a wrong way does show case Christianity.

What God allows now here only shows that God is having mercy on all of us at the
moment. If there isn't a correct way to act, then our wills have no meaning whatsoever no
matter what we do outside of our likes and dislikes. Our likes and dislikes would be put
against the next guy's likes and dislikes and the one that gets their way wins as far as he
or she is happy and the other is not.

We get a "supposed" to behave this way thrown into the mix, than a whole new level or
reality is on stage. You dismiss a good and a bad, than our will no matter how we act, is
as meaningful as water boiling, it just is.

Originally posted by rwingett
I disagree. Free will is an impossibility in conjunction with an omnipotent and omniscient god. If God is truly omniscient, he would have necessarily foreseen the choices every one of his creations would ever make, and he would have gauged all their ensuing effects. As all those choices exist in a chain of cause and effect going back to the initial set of c ...[text shortened]... nstrates that mankind behaves exactly as God intended. Indeed, he could not have done otherwise.

That or the only one who could give free will is an omnipotent and omniscient God only
they would know who chooses, God or the one with the will.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Given that the free will argument is a complete flop, I think you can safely consider Christianity broken. Now what?

Perhaps it is time Christians choose one of the other. God is either all powerful or all loving. With the existence of evil in the world, i don't see how he can be both.

Originally posted by rwingett
It has long been my position that free will is an impossibility in conjunction with an omnipotent and omniscient god and that everything that happens in this world is necessarily what god intended all along. Satan is on god's payroll, so to speak.

Not sure what your point is with regard to distributive justice, though.

Not sure what your point is with regard to distributive justice, though.

I was just thinking of your Christian socialism arguments, and mentioned in passing.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Thank you saw that, but it doesn't change anything. Nothing I said there is going against
what I wrote here. I'm just looking at it the question differently, but the answers are the
same. I don't believe that "free will" is truly the goal, but a will that will restrain oneself
due to the love it has. We are still making the choices, our choices are still ...[text shortened]... ng to be
judged. Am I saying something that you think does not line up with what I said before?

I simply think that saying God does or doesn't do something due to his consideration for free will is bad argument, based on the many times that God had directly manipulated the free will of individuals and even whole cities.

Originally posted by vivify
I simply think that saying God does or doesn't do something due to his consideration for free will is bad argument, based on the many times that God had directly manipulated the free will of individuals and even whole cities.

I give my kids the freedom to do what they will in our home, that does not mean that I will
allow everything they want to do when they want to do it. There are lines even in loving
homes where everyone should respect, and if that isn't the case, then things none of us
really want to happen can occur. Just because God stops or directly manipulates us from
time to time, it is His universe and we are just in it.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Something appears to be missing... I don't see where man having a choice in the matter (free will) factors into this, and it appears free will and the ability to choose has been intentionally left out in order to insure the argument will be absurd. God allowing us to say either yes or no to him has always been a part of this, so why have you left this part out?

Free will can enter into it in several ways, but does not change the reductio:

First, human free will is often raised as a defeater of God’s will that all be saved (in that some people “refuse the gift” ). That is essentially an Arminian argument, under which God desires to save, but fails because of human free will.

Second, the free-will argument entails that God values our ability to freely choose over our ultimate well-being.

— Note: In the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which I believe that the Samaritan is an analog for God (or Christ), the Samaritan does not wait for permission to save the beaten man. He does not wait until the man is sufficiently conscious and aware to make an informed choice about whether or not he wants the Samaritan to save him. He asks nothing of the man at all. Which also goes to the third point, viz:

Third, the free-will argument really can only work if it is assumed that the choice is made under conditions of full awareness of both the gift and the consequences of refusal—no seeing things “through a glass darkly”, so to speak. Otherwise it is really an unfair choice (either way, it is a forced choice).

—Note: It is important here to mention that the free-will argument generally restricts the choice to this lifetime, and under conditions where even proponents often seem to argue that we do not have full knowledge and awareness—e.g., when arguments are made that we cannot fully or at least sufficiently understand common terms as applied to God (such as God’s being just). And yet it is assumed that people have a sufficient concept of eternity, for example, rather than just some vague notion of “a really long time”. [Note within a note: it is not uncontroversial that the Greek words commonly—though not exclusively—translated as “forever” actually mean that.]

Fourth, it is clear that, Biblically, God does not always value our free will over either our own well-being or the well-being of others. Proponents of the soteriological free-will argument seem to assume that this is the single case in which God shows greater concern for our choosing than for our well-being—our well-being throughout all eternity.

I think that the free-will argument is an especially bad argument when cast in the context of a God whose ideal of justice is essentially retributive rather than reformative/restorative—that is, in the context of a forever-lasting punishment, or any punishment whose intent is not reformative/restorative. It is hard to square that with a God who is not only “just” (an attribute) or who is “love” [agape] ( a statement of essential nature)—without stripping such words of their meaning. It is also hard to square with the model of God the father as a loving parent. It certainly does not fit in a model of salvation as being healed or made well. (Just to be clear, by “hard to square”, I mean unreasonable, not merely what I might dislike.)

__________________________________________________________

In addition to the above, the kind of “libertarian free will” generally assumed in the argument ends up being either internally contradictory, or reduces to randomness. This has been shown on here multiple times before. I’ll see if I can find a thread reference when I have more time.

I came across a very interesting article that would seem fit for this thread. It has quotes from "When Bad Things Happen To Good People, by Rabbi Harold Kushner"

In my opinion, I don't believe God is in control of everything that happens. In other words He does not cause every thing that happens, nor can he always stop things that happen, without over stepping his own will.

http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/the-problem-with-blaming-god

Originally posted by KellyJay
I give my kids the freedom to do what they will in our home, that does not mean that I will
allow everything they want to do when they want to do it. There are lines even in loving
homes where everyone should respect, and if that isn't the case, then things none of us
really want to happen can occur. Just because God stops or directly manipulates us from
time to time, it is His universe and we are just in it.

God hardened Pharaoh's heart as an excuse to rain down plagues on Egypt, which included first-born sons being killed. What "love" did God display in manipulating Pharaoh's will like that?

Originally posted by divegeester
There is a big assumption being made here: that God's intention is to save everyone. While an aspirational intent of universal ultimate reconciliation is inherently woven through much of the Bible, especially the NT, and the temporal acts of judgement notwithstanding, the intent of God to save everyone is not entirely consistent in scripture.

Take R ...[text shortened]... ith much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.

Just putting it out there...[/b]

The reductio doesn’t assume that; it is, however, the proposition that Augustinians/Calvinists reject in order to uphold 3. without contradiction.

I conceded, certainly, that there are texts that can be called upon in support of that position. There are also texts that support alternative view (including a rather famous one also in Romans). I’m sure that will all come out—and that’s a good thing. Right now, though I’m going to be patient and stay focused on the logic of the reductio and various arguments as much as possible, while I am assembling my own scriptural arguments.

In the meantime, I will note that, if the purpose of God’s wrath is to demonstrate God’s power—as the quoted verse states—then, once that power is demonstrated, there seems no point to eternally continuing that wrath. Further, why is it assumed that God’s patience endures only for this lifetime?

With that opening “What if . . .”, I have to go look at the context, especially in Romans. But I note that this passage at best points to ultimate annihilation, not ultimate forever-lasting torment. Still, it seems strictly retributive.

That’s too brief a response to your post, but that’s all I have time for some hours today.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That depends on the definitions of the words involved. Anyway, you may take it up with rwingett, I was merely pointing out that you had misunderstood his post.

I did misunderstand, thanks for pointing it out.