Does that mean you agree with Open Theism? If not, then how do you differ, in the context of your quoted statement
I assume you know what open theism is. Otherwise, I would be happy to supply a couple links. Hey, I’ll supply some anyway - for folks who might not know
I usually find that the Calvinist site CARM (AKA Matt Slick), is usually better throught out, than the Calvinist site Got Questions. But Got Questions provides far more answers. Let me just highlight the CARM answers. See the essay, for a complete expository:
The condemned answer, should be placed in context, of our belief system (i.e. ECT, Exile, Annihilation, Universalism. etc.). I do find that Matt’s ideas are sensible possibilities.
I think these answers are more in depth, without the Calvinist lens. So I would be particularly interested, in you feedback here (in addition, to the CARM answer):
I really like the** The Problem of Evil** essay, as it puts everything nicely into perspective. I learn towards the External Selves essay (by William Ferraiolo, Ph.D,) approach, along with this from Suffering and the Problem of Evil (AKA Call to Action):
And the Eternal Selves essay, says this in essence:
Or as the essay itself says:
And here is how The Problem of Evil essay (by Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., professor of philosophy at Boston College), addresses the Rabbi book (I’m in accord, with these answers):
Well, that’s my take on things. And my answer to Hermano and Eleutheros. Now let’s see what Dennis (AKA Eleutheros) and others - have to say
Paidion, I don’t believe that such natural occurrences are the result of man’s sin. In your example, since man and animals are eating all the plants, mosquitoes would most likely need to adapt and find another source of food in order to survive. To me, Adam was a mortal man just like all the rest of us, and whether we sin or not, we will all die someday. That’s just the way God made it. This is why every living thing has the seeds of reproduction. God has prepared man for spiritual “death” as well. For in each of us, there is a seed of God which never dies.
Isaiah 54 has always been a favorite of mine. The entire chapter reminds us that though there is brokenness, brokenness is never the end of the story. In fact God has designed brokenness so that he could demonstrate the greater victory in conquering through us.
Thanks for that Jeff.
The very hard pill to swallow is the above quote, isn’t it? Isn’t the whole world broken - and not just heartache, I mean the entire 20th century was a holocaust and a bloodbath, every conceivable atrocity (so far) that man could imagine.
Do you think God designed that? I hope He did not.
It’s just as hard for me to think that He ‘allowed it’, as that signifies power to stop it, but power put aside. Is that to question His wisdom? NO, but a little insight would really help.
The other path, that of His powerlessness, is not very palatable either.
In so saying, I’ve done nothing but recap the Problem of Pain as it has existed for millennia.
Well, Boy Howdy! Slap me silly and then call me a fool! I must be an Open Theist!!
I’ll happily accept that stamp if it’s helpful for those here to grasp what I’m blathering on about!
However, please know that I came to my point-of-view through a lot of research. That is to say, I did not come to be an, “Open Theist,” because I read something somewhere and thought, Cool! I like that!
My first contact with, “Open Theism,” was when I stumbled across Gregg Boyd and exchanged a few e-mails with him concerning the translation of katabole with, “disruption,” rather than, “foundation,” and the difference that made to understanding.
Soon after that he had to stop replying personally because of his growing, “popularity.”
A long time ago, in a Baptist High School far, far away…
I debated Free will vs Predestination during lunch period and with my Bible teachers and, by the time High School was over, I decided that, despite all those heart-felt 3x5 cards I signed pronouncing me saved, if this was the God of the Universe, you can have Him. Besides, if I am among these, “elect,” then I can sin with impunity because I can’t loose my salvation, no matter what I do! If I’m not, then, to hell with it all! Might as well enjoy my life while I can! That was 1978, long, long before the Internet.
Of course that was not a soul-satisfying response, and sin has serious consequences.
Fast-forward to a point where I stumbled on I John 3:9 in the Amplified Bible and had the WTF? kicked out of me.
It was kinda like Martin Luther reading: “The just shall live by faith.” All kinds of crazy, (personal) history-making stuff followed.
So, I thought to myself, if I am, “born-again,” then I have the Spirit of Jesus in me and The Words say that is all I need to be led into all understanding. So, since Genesis is the book of beginnings, then, it makes sense that if I get Genesis right, everything else will fall into place! Okay! Let’s get to it!
I deliberately avoided the theological writings of others (while still enjoying the fanciful writing of certain authors), and concentrated on learning to use the tools of study. My first copy of Strong’s and Vine’s and my Amplified Bible were literally falling apart as I came to understand that there was no way God could have foreknown, as a fact, that the first human beings were going to, “fall.” That brings me up to about 2002, when I got my first computer and an Internet connection and MS Word (Yeah!). Then, about 2008, while posting on another forum, I was unceremoniously introduced to Universalisim - that heresy I was studiously warned to avoid if I valued my immortal soul - and the rest is history.
Now, the results of that research gave me the idea that I should begin a narrative on Genesis 1-3, which I later titled, “Creation Hymn.” That was a good decision. The writing helped make my thoughts more cogent because writing a narrative leads to asking questions that I then had to find the answers to, if the narrative were to continue.
I guess you could say, for my now accepting the label Open Theist, that it is a narrative (unintentionally) written from an Open Theist point-of-view!
I could go point-by-point, but others are already doing that.
The way I see it, any consideration of the question: “If God is Good (and all those omni-thingys), then why is there so much Pain And Suffering (Evil) in the World?” must include a consideration of the contributions the contemplator has made to all the Evil (Pain and Suffering) in the world.
And that is pretty much what I’ve been effusing as I typed out all those other words.
If that contemplation is absent, then I perceive that all the ten-dollar words used to describe hundred-dollar concepts would only end up turning me into what Paul said about certain believers, that they are ever learning, but unable to arrive at a recognition of the truth.
I am sorry. I did not have any person in mind besides myself as I typed that out, but I know that comment might be perceived as an unkind thing to say. I do not wish to offend, and hope I haven’t, but I can offer, as my defense, that the Gospel of the reconciliation of men to God is highly-personalized, being all about me (and you), and so I perceive that my contemplation on such things as this should be just as personalized.
I am a sinner (and sometimes I’ve been a pernicious one), who has contributed way too much Evil to the world. I don’t wish to do so any longer. Therefore, I humbly accept Your reconciliation of myself to You, my LORD and Savior, and welcome the Spirit of Jesus inside me to re-sire me and create a new being that is learning how to let love lead him into righteousness; for I desire to hear You say to me, when I stand resurrected before your dais,“Well-done! Dennis, you have been a good and faithful servant. Enter into your allotment in my Kingdom!” A-men.
I gotta have faith.
For the first bolded part I do not concur that Evil is also a part of God’s creation because that would mean He created it! For being, now, an Open Theist, I can say - with a newly-labeled authority - what I’ve been saying for so long before I was thus appellated, Evil is not a thing to be created, rather it is an intangible that can only exist when the choices of beings who have a conscience choose to do evil, thus giving it tangibility.
For the second bolded part, I can’t say that, “we,” are necessarily called to end evil, as if it could be permanently eradicated by our actions against it because, “we,” are the reason there is evil in the world! So, that would mean we’d have to eradicate ourselves entirely to end all evil!
God did that once, almost. He saved only eight human souls. And evil still returned.
You sure are throwing a lot of stuff my way! And Mr. Blake, too! Well, a Baa, Baa and a Grrrowl to you. My thanks.
Concerning the dictionary-bending essay, External Selves and the Problem of Evil, as I read through it, Paul’s and Peter’s words seemed to me to sum this point of view best:
Now, will this theodicy that no physical suffering can harm an, “immaterial self,” work for the soulful mortal enduring his or her life on earth only vaguely aware that his or her spirit will endure after death - a human being who has not yet been re-sired by Jehovah to understand that what lies, “behind the veil,” is the true reality of his or her existence and that what is done in the here and now effects, if there is post-mortem reward and punishment, that existence?
I don’t think so.
But, it works for me! Forgiveness of others for inflicting Pain and Suffering on me is as much for the benefit of my spirit, as it would be for their soul.
I did note that Ferraiolo wrote this:
And this seems to resonate with what I’ve been typing about.
However, there was one more thing from this essay that struck me as particularly poignant.
Sometimes the evil human beings can inflict on each other is just too inexplicable… too diabolical. And any attempts, whatsoever, to justify it by saying that something good can, or could, or did, come from it, borders on being inhuman and criminally un-empathetic.
I have only one thought, weakly offered, and offered only to acknowledge that there is a reason the word, “diabolical,” exists.
This will be one-thousand years of human history that does not have to endure that diabolical influence.
I read that article yesterday and was going to begin my reply today with exactly this quote! Could there be some kinda squantum-entangled de-arrangedbrain wave-thingy here?
Nah. We’re just all possibilities waiting to happen.
It sounds like something, TV evangelist Joel Osteen might say.
I believe you missed responding to The Problem of Evil essay (by Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., professor of philosophy at Boston College) and my quoted portion. Or did you embed your reply, the the quoted text If so, it’s a new literary style - I haven’t encountered here before - or elsewhere, for that matter. I do find Peter’s and the Rabbi’s responses - the most inspiring.
Before your response, I did revise my ** Suffering and the Problem of Evil** (AKA Call to Action), to emphasize the second point (which you appear to side with).
I really like that
I really like that, also
Mystics or those having mystical experience, really see things - in the here and now.
As far as the** Eternal Selves** essay goes, the Christian and non-Christian mystics, do see things in a different light - after their mystical experience. So perhaps that author, is not too far removed. And having contemplated in the Red Road (AKA Native American Spirituality), Mindfulness, Quaker and Zen traditions, I do see things differently - from most people.
But bad things and situations - can be healed. That’s what I learned from the Native American medicine people and ceremonies, saints from the East, Christian prayer, the gifts of the spirit, watching TV evangelist Joel Osteen, reflecting in the Quaker way and contemplating the goodness of God (AKA reflecting in the traditions of authors Mary Baker Eddy, Goel Goldsmith and Emmet Fox - minus the theology). And here is the great mystery. Somethings what’s the most probably bad thing to happen, can be minimized or even eliminated. Via the spirit of God - acting within us.
And maybe wearing blessed objects. Like I do with a silver cross, that’s blessed by:
Priests from the Roman Catholic Church
Saints I know from the East
Being placed on the Native American, Sweat Lodge ceremonial altars, of ceremonies I took part in
Of course, this could all be some sort of cosmic placebo effect - on my part.
And what I learned from the saints (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and other traditions), is we need to behave like Christ - to the best of our ability. And help people, as much as we can - to the best of our ability.
Here ares some good links, regarding the sweat lodge:
In the end, everybody must find their own philosophical and theological answers, to the problem of pain and suffering. As a pragmatist, I suggest they find, what works for them.
Here is my theory, short but to the point. I have an extended version but… And maybe someone will either run with this or destroy it.
God can not create and allow free agency without allowing for crap to happen. He allows us to live.
The crap is sometimes horrible, in our estimation, and that is important to remember.
The horrible crap and the day to day little turds can and I believe *are used by God YHWH *to keep things within his scope of acceptance. This is hard for even us multi-taskers to understand. A three year old dying of leukemia or six million Jews being exterminated, or a flood of epic proportions, has in my estimation a real place in God’s onward moving plan for humanity.
We really don’t have a grasp at this point as to what is really evil and what God considers ‘bad behavior.’ Or in other words, each of us has a definition of evil that is different than others, and I would bet, different than God’s definition, if you take into account His ultimate end for humanity.
The elect (believers) are his servants, those He uses to make the changes he would like made. Saints, believers, Christians.
So we have, free will, election, hardships that are used for good, A God that is truly merciful and benevolent. And a God that is ultimately superior in HIS ability to know what He wants for us. He gave all of humanity very many chances before He dropped the hammer. When He did.
Because we can’t accept it, does not make what God does invalid.
I do say that I may change the theory at some point but…
Some how I see all these things and yet have faith.
In the end, everybody must find their own philosophical and theological answers, to the problem of pain and suffering. As a pragmatist, I suggest they find, what works for them.
Not necessarily what some classical nor contemporary theologian or philosopher said…Nor what someone necessarily said here, with an RYO (AKA Roll Your Own) answer. And given the two choices, I would rather run with what some classical (or contemporary) theologian or philosopher said.
It’s all a matter of perspective, and the right song.
And no. Month Python is not necessarily, making fun of Christianity. As the Monty Python movie (AKA Life of Brian), deals with historical, artistic topics - like how Romans normally killed people.
Yes, I agree. There is a truly unique way of thinking about Pain and Suffering that is found only in Universalisim as one contemplates the thought that redemption is not limited to this life, but that the offer of redemption remains for everyone, even after death.
As I thoughtfully grew to accept that the Universalist arguments were of truth, I came to grips with an uncomfortable thought in my heart that had never been challenged before. Indeed, it wasn’t until Universalisim started its life-changing debate in my heart that I was forced to acknowledge this thought’s influence.
The thought was that I liked the idea that eternal and conscious torment awaited sinful human beings - especially for those uber-sinful ones that caused me Pain and Suffering - as long as I was exempt from it.
Man, that’s ugly.
I felt shame. And that was when I fully realized that Universalisim, the belief that Jehovah can and will save all of humanity through Jesus Christ, exactly as He said He was going to, was, indeed, the truthful thought, the real axiom, on which I should build my understanding of scripture.
As a corollary to squaring-off with this understanding of my heart, I came to perceive that this was how religion was turned from providing comfort and assistance for those in need to giving people a way of thinking that exempted them from hell for as long as they believed that hell was eternal and conscious torment for sinful human beings.
Historically considered, that is why Universalisim, the belief of the first two centuries of Christianity, was replaced with Augustinianisim as The Words were carefully translated into what we have today. Augustinianisim gave the clergy, in the expanding clergy/laity divide - the Nicolations as they were first called - the power they needed to be, “victorious over the people,” because Augustinianisim’s power is the fear of an eternal and conscious torment for sinful human beings, as long as an exemption is provided for those of the true faith.
Think on the history of The Church in the middle ages, and then on the history of your own heart before you embraced Universalisim, and I think you’ll find this an arresting thought.
I am sharing this as a way of explaining why the thought that Jesus Christ can and will redeem all of humanity is both a truthful way of thinking that leads to truthful thoughts that enable one to endure the reality of Pain and Suffering in this age of human history, even as it did for the first Believers, and why Christian resistance to Universalisim is so vehement. For as long as a human being can believe that he or she is exempt from conscious and eternal torment for their sins, for the evil they do that leads to Pain and Suffering in others, they can happily embrace their election as a separation from the rest of humanity in the way one would embrace a membership in an exclusive club that was paid for by it’s owner.
A lot of justification for my evil actions was found when that thought was a truth in my heart; for don’t I like to think in my heart that, somehow, I’m better than everybody else?
And isn’t that also a thought within my heart that is challenged by believing that Jesus Christ can and will redeem all of humanity?
Well, if you accept literally Moses’ account of creation in Genesis, you would not make that presumption.
God planted the Tree of Life there in the Garden along with the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There is no indication that Adam and Eve ever tasted the fruit of the Tree of Life, though they were never forbidden to do so. But, at the instigation of the Serpent, they did “fall” from God’s grace by eating the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. After that God sent them out of the garden and posted cherubim to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life and live forever. God didn’t create them mortal, but they became mortal through disobedience, and then God took steps to see that they remained mortal.
Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:22-24 ESV)
This thesis could be disproved thus…
Will mankind have a will in glory? Yes. Will ‘crap’ happen in glory? No.
So the fact that we have a will is not the reason for sin, but instead that our wills are fallen.
Which brings us back to the question of original sin, how did the will of every human being become fallen such that we are bent toward sin?
Hi Jeff, you are right, we’ve been through this before. I believe that your Idea of Glory is a bit tainted, though that is a very different subject. Your idea about original sin is a slog. You and everyone else here can debate this till the cows com home I believe that our father is in control and yet gives us free agency. Hard to understand and very hard to defend using scripture. There is a faith element involved, and I see no reason to shoehorn old decrepit ideas about the God YHWH and Christ that came for a specific reason into some place that puts humanity into a perilous/ unreconcilable position. Glory is the idea of the creator bringing back the lost into his fold. Very simple and very cool.
And yet I love you and know your position is valid in your world!
Hey, I’ll supply some anyway - for folks who might not know 
I read that article yesterday and was going to begin my reply today with exactly this quote! Could there be some kinda squantum-entangled de-arrangedbrain wave-thingy here?
If so, it’s a new literary style - I haven’t encountered here before - or elsewhere, for that matter. I do find Peter’s and the Rabbi’s responses - the most inspiring.
