Steve, FWIW, I hear Chris to understand that our decisions are caused or “determined,” but only by our own soul’s choice, which is able to transcend all other influencing factors.
Thanks, Bob. 
That’s something I would have difficulty with, I guess. Chris, are you believing that souls themselves are undetermined but some have a tendency to make “good” choices and some to make “bad” ones—privileging their desires etc.? (though the choices are influenced by determined elements such as heredity, environment, life experiences and previous choices)
Is that closer to what you’re saying, Chris?
I love this perspective, Cindy, in part because it accords so well with my own understanding of Paul’s vision of creation in two stages. Here is how I expressed this vision in Universal salvation? The Current Debate, p. 18:
Paul also wrote: “it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical *, and then the spiritual” (1 Cor. 15:46). And though he nowhere used the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, he seems clearly to have held that the first stage of creation—namely, our emergence from the dust of the earth in a context of ambiguity, illusion, sin, and death—is a necessary condition of the second, wherein God reconciles us to himself and perfects as saints.
Thanks for expressing my view (as well as your own) so beautifully.
-Tom*
But the first man and woman, and indeed the creation itself, was Good. On top of that, that first pair was placed in an Eden of delight.
Oh wait - i see what you’re thinking - the first Adam was not the Adam in the garden, he ‘stands for’ a process of becoming in a world that the first Adam and his descendants had ruined. Is that correct? God did not create any illusions, any ambiguity, any sin; Adam, though he was made in the image and likeness of God - not in the likeness of beasts! - freely chose ruin, and in fact, death.
And that is the process God wanted?
I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying, before I launch a withering, sarcastic, hate-filled diatribe. Not. 
Just want a clear picture.
Dave, obviously I can’t answer for Tom, but for myself, I think the first Adam represents mankind in a state of original innocence, having just lately been awakened from among the insensible creatures. The best example I can think of is Aslan awakening the beasts who were to become talking beasts in The Magician’s Nephew. They were innocent, but they did have all this inherited baggage. Previous to their awakening, they could not have done evil no matter what they did because they had no concept of it. They did what their drives led them to do. It was GOOD because the building process was moving along well and was right where it ought to be at that point in time. We were ready for the next step and our choice would determine what that step looked like. We chose wrong . . . but God makes the honor of the later temple greater than that of the former. Even when it’s bad, it’s still going to be good.
I do think early mankind had a choice as to whether to trust their Father and learn from Him, or to rely on their own new-found cleverness. We chose cleverness and we are still choosing it for the most part. On the occasion of God’s speaking to the Hebrew children at Sinai, He offered to make them (every single one of them) priests unto Him. A priest communicates directly with God in his own and others’ behalf. They were chosen to be the go-between for the “nations,” but they said, “Let not God speak to us lest we die.” Instead they wanted Moses to speak to God for them and give them God’s commands and they would do them. God said then, “What the people have said is good.” Really? But they just rejected His amazing, wonderful offer in favor of a lists of do’s and don’t’s. 
How could He say it was good? Yet He did. He would make it good, I suppose. Or maybe it wasn’t quite as good as He wanted, but still good – as it would lead to their disenchantment with their own abilities to obey a law. At least they ASKED for a law and indicated their desire to obey it. Even when it’s less good, it’s still going to be good.
The second Adam, Jesus, is the door back to the Father. Jesus did nothing but what He saw the Father doing. That is, imo, our example, and His death and resurrection and ascension and the sending of the HS is our enablement. From there, as we submit to the Spirit of God and are led by the Spirit of God, we become the mature sons of God, ready and approved as representatives of the family of God. (Somewhat weird, but if you guys can tolerate being the bride, I guess I can put up with being a son. 
) Despite my slight gender disorientation though, I can’t help thinking that being made into the image of Christ, who is the image of God, is nothing but all good. God does call those things that be not, as though they were.
Thank you Cindy. I need to let that ‘soak in’ for awhile - it’s quite a vision!
Seems like a moot point whether the Creation event/process involved death, pain, sin or was the genuinely good beginning that Genesis seems to uphold. God knew of all the holocausts and disasters and diseases and horrendous evils and pains that would ensue, saw an earth filled with corruption and violence, and yet commanded Noah to be fruitful and multiply. To me, the only way this squares with a God of Love, is if all things really will be reconciled in the end, such that all of these horrors will have passed away and soon be looked upon as mere birth pangs compared to the then-present and future joy.
Is it evil or sinful for us to have children in this fallen world, knowing full well that they will sin themselves and struggle through pain and death? No – but only because of a God Who will amend such things in time.
A God Who would create knowing full well that some evils would not be conquered, some people would be abandoned to utter despair and pain in an eternal hell – this just isn’t Love, in my opinion. But if God refuses to give up and comes behind and works to clean up the unavoidable messiness that comes with creating other true persons, then that is Love. Love never fails, but will allow failure and work to change it to good. My current weird thought of the day, anyway.
RJS, a science prof who blogs on Scot McKnight’s “Jesus Creed,” has often addressed Genesis vs. the appearance that our evolutionary world was full of treachery and death from the beginning. She, as well as Peter Enns, observe that the original creation involves dark chaos, the serpent’s evil force, and our need to “subdue” the creation and join with God’s work of exercising dominion and continuing to bring order to the chaos. My sense is that being a “good” creation must not mean that it or Adam is yet sinless, perfect, or complete, but is filled from the beginning with the ambiquity, ignorance, etc that Dr. Talbott noted. Of course, this seems to call into question evangelicals’ traditional interpretation of the ‘fall.’
“She, as well as Peter Enns, observe that the original creation involves dark chaos, the serpent’s evil force, and our need to “subdue” the creation and join with God’s work of exercising dominion and continuing to bring order to the chaos. My sense is that being a “good” creation must not mean that it or Adam is yet sinless, perfect, or complete, but is filled from the beginning with the ambiquity, ignorance, etc that Dr. Talbott noted. Of course, this seems to call into question evangelicals’ traditional interpretation of the ‘fall.’”
Important - I’m just questioning here - not accusing - I appreciate all the insights that you people have shared, and I know some of those insights have been hard-won.
But I wonder what we are losing, if anything, as we try to re-imagine the “myth”? It appears that God is a shadowy figure who did not really create, but who is ‘trying’ to bring order to the chaos He ‘found’ - and not succeeding? That the ‘goodness’ of creation is not the goodness of a job well done by the Creator, but is instead, from the beginning, really messed up? That God is in someway responsible for all the atrocities?
I think Genesis was specifically written to dispel those assertions! I have to say, that my life, which has hung by a thread for much of it, held on only because I felt that God is all-good, and all-wise, and all-loving. That there is no shadow in Him. That the world was created ‘good’ and will be returned to that state of goodness. The question of evil is indeed perplexing and unsolveable; but in order to accommodate the stress of that question, I hope it is not required that we jettison the wisdom of inspired scripture.
I don’t think any of you subscribe to any speculation that diminishes the greatness and goodness of God, and I know that you are dedicated to Him above all else; however, I’m getting an uneasy feeling that we could throw the Creator out with the bathwater, if you see what I mean.
These are deep waters for me; everything - everything - hangs on the character of the Creator.
Not necessarily, Dave. What’s tricky about the word translated “good” there is that it’s “Tov”, which actually means something more like functional, rather than morally good. As I understand it, it’s more like the equivalent of us saying in today’s world, “that works!”
And of course, it certainly doesn’t mean perfect, which I think we all already know.
So I think that represents an additional fit into what Tom is saying.
Well Dave, this view is quite similar to that of Irenaeus which I think Tom mentioned elsewhere on the thread and certainly has promoted in his writing. I don’t think Irenaeus can be accused of jettisoning the wisdom of scripture. The Augustinian version of the fall is not the only version with scriptural support and many (including myself to be honest) feel that the Iranean version is much more philosophically coherent and also accords better with what we know of the world from science—i.e death and predation before man arrives on the scene, evolution, the apparent “fallenness” of us all.
Steve - you DID read my opening sentence, right? - that I was not accusing anyone of anything, just asking? Settle down, I’m not saying you or anyone is jettisoning anything.
Ok??
So God is ‘functional’ as well? - Or is there a different word for God? I know nothing of the language.
Dave,
I appreciate your tone and regret that the interpretation of Genesis that I cited brings angst concerning God’s character. I’ve never had the impression that Enns or those on McKnight’s blog question or intend to undermine God’s goodness, an axiom which for me also is about as non-negotiable as anything could be. But I assume that whether Genesis describes the specifics argued, such as God as One bringing order out of chaos, the presence of evil in the garden, or if we’re being presented with already perfect beings and creation, needs to be argued by appeal to the text, rather than to what we may prefer.
I perceive that my tradition tended to ignore elements that did not fit their systematic theologies. I personally suspect that the attribute at issue is more God’s power, and the mystery with the problem of evil that remains for many of us, as to why God would have allowed or created any world that often does not appear to reflect goodness.
Grace be with you,
Bob
Sorry, Dave.
Didn’t mean to come across as so defensive in my post. Just wanted to mention in that post that the view (Irenaen) does have scriptural support and the support of one of the ECF’s and solves a lot of difficult problems a more Augustinian view can’t.
Yahtzee!
This is the idea I’ve been attacking for some time now on these boards. If sin and evil were “necessary”, then they do not come freely from the creation. They therefore are come from God. God, therefore, is the cause of evil. And how can someone who causes evil not be evil? We would have to say that whatever was caused was not in fact evil, but then we’d be reduced to saying evil doesn’t exist! The only concept of God I can accept (which I believe is the Christian one) is a God all good, all perfect, all powerful, in whom is no darkness at all.
I’ve tried to show the sheer impossibility of holding both beliefs simultaneously - that is, of believing God is all good and powerful and believing that he made a universe which necessarily contained evil. An all good and powerful God CANNOT cause evil. I’m not sure I’ve got the point across though.
If we assume God caused evil, we must concede that the evil in the creation somehow “adds” to its beauty and goodness. But if that was the case, it would cease to be evil, since it would be worse if such did NOT exist, seeing as a “greater good” would therefore not be achieved. If the only way to save a life is to amputate, it would be evil NOT to do such a thing. If evil is caused by God, in other words, it ceases to be evil. But who would deny that evil exists? Then again, if we say that the pain in the amputation is just “how things are”, we’re saying God is not powerful enough to create a state of affairs in which evil is unavoidable. How could an all powerful God be “bound” to do this? What set of “possible worlds” is he appealing to, outside his own mind, which limits him in this way? Even I can imagine a world with many many good things and no evil things. The two ideas of “creation” and “evil” are not necessarily, logically connected as far as I can see. I’ve tried to sum this up by saying “evil needs good and could not be without it; good, on the other hand, does not need evil; and can be without it.” Any attempt to say that evil (not to mention very great suffering) “must” be present in creation seems to me to be saying that God is somehow “forced” or “bound” to make something evil. But what could possibly be pressing in on and limiting God in this way? He is the greatest being there is; there is no tribunal outside his own will which determines the laws of existence. And that will, I believe, is all-good and powerful.
In short, assuming evil and sin are necessary destroys our ability to call one thing good and another evil, it also makes the ultimate cause of evil God, makes absurd our notions of guilt and responsibility and renders meaningless our feeling of free choice (an illusion which God must have “caused”, by the way), and posits a metaphysical dualism in the Godhead making it necessary for him to create and will evil.
So I - for one - cannot believe sin was or ever is necessary. Not to mention, as you say, it goes against the account in Genesis which says that all was created good.
Thanks Bob - I do see now that there is a great investment by those on this thread in the speculations engendered by Enns and others - which is nothing more than the end-product (so far at least) of trends in thought started 100 years ago or more. And I am the last one to denigrate the findings of science, though I also know very well that science is not done in a vacuum, that politics, finances and egos drive science more than the thirst for knowledge. Yeah that’s a blanket statement and off the subject anyway… I am all for science.
Because of the investment in those speculations, I’ll back off in this thread. No problem.
Chris - Yahtzee?? Good, I’m glad we agree!!
One frustration I have in leading a discussion such as this is that so many important posts get left behind in the dust. I’ll read a post, think it important, and intend to respond to it. But then, by the time I get back to the discussion, so much has happened and so many additional items of a more immediately pressing nature have appeared that an important post gets left behind in the dust, as I said. I just checked back in, for example, and was amazed at how much had gone on since I last checked in.
Anyway, what follows is part of a post, published at 12:05 p.m. on April 12th, to which I had intended to respond before this:
One possible source of confusion here, Paidion, is that proponents of middle knowledge tend to use the term “counterfactual” in ways that are not strictly accurate. My point is not that they are themselves confused in their usage; they are not. It has more to do with how a piece of philosophical jargon, namely the expression “counterfactuals of freedom,” has evolved in the contemporary discussion of middle knowledge. The term now commonly designates subjunctive conditions that may not be strictly counterfactual at all. For the sake of a rough and inaccurate explanation of middle knowledge, let “C” represent a possible set of circumstances in which (a) I am offered a million dollars to travel to Mexico and to return with a large cache of heroin to be sold in the U.S. and (b) I am truly free either to accept or to reject the bribe. And now consider the following pair of subjunctive conditionals:
(1) If C should obtain tomorrow, then Tom Talbott would freely accept the bribe.
(2) If C should obtain tomorrow, then Tom Talbott would freely refuse (i.e., not accept) the bribe.
Now if God has middle knowledge, then he knows right now which of these two propositions is true and which is false; even on the assumption that C will not in fact obtain tomorrow, he knows what I would do freely tomorrow if C were to obtain tomorrow. In other words, middle knowledge supposedly includes more than a simple foreknowledge of future contingencies; it also includes a knowledge of what you and I would do freely in circumstances that will never in fact obtain. He knows, for example, how you would have responded freely yesterday were I to have written a vicious and unfair attack upon you.
For my own part, I think I can understand how to reconcile simple foreknowledge with human freedom, which is David Hunt’s position. But as for middle knowledge, I’m not yet persuaded that we can coherently attribute such knowledge to God. For I’m not yet persuaded that there is something to be known here about how you might have responded freely in a set of circumstances that will never in fact obtain.
Hope that isn’t too confusing.
-Tom
Not 100% sure, but I think the Hebrew might be able to be translated multiple ways depending on context. I suppose it’s possible that it could mean “morally good” when applied to God (since He’s the only one that is truly Good), or perhaps there is another word used. Tov can also mean “luck” as when used in the phrase “Mazel Tov”.
Here’s a link that talks about what I posted before briefly: ancient-hebrew.org/27_good.html
Thanks Melchi.
I’ll do some poking around on that site and try to track down various uses of ‘tov’.
It would be very strange, to me, think that the ‘It was very good’ means ‘functional’, unless by ‘functional’ is meant that the creation of the universe and the earth, and mankind, were ‘morally’ good as well; not neutral, ‘good’.
Ok, that was a shallow thought. Let me try this: knowing as we do some of the reasons for the Genesis story being written, how it was designed to set apart Yahweh from the surrounding ‘gods’, from their quarreling amongst themselves, their lusts, their immoralities, and other unGodlike traits as well -
I can’t fathom a Jewish writer (J or P) characterizing Him as making man in His image, and at the same time confused, ambiguous, messed up, made to fail. I am not aware of any Jewish writing that would so characterize God.
Do you see my point? (And I was going to ease off on this thread…but it’s too interesting) 