PM sent.
The confusion is happily resolved! Prince is a gracious and intelligent contributor to the Forum, IMO, 
and I was not clear enough in my cheerleading for Johnny’s post - I was in fact, happy about the post, but in no way was I saying the Prince’s views were wrongheaded. I thought he was asking questions, and I think Johnny’s post was a good answer. I thought the OP questions were excellent.
So let us go forward good people.
Yaay! Trebles all round, what! 
Seriously, I think most of us here are pretty much singing from the same hymn sheet as far as God’s freely embraced obligations to his creation are concerned. I agree GMac’s sermon I quoted doesn’t settle the matter by any means. But personally I think that Talbott kind of does, following MacDonald, when he says that God is ‘obligated’, in his loving nature, to do his very best for us. Because surely if it is in God’s power to grant us eternal bliss with him, and he does not do it, then he is not in fact doing his very best for us?
I wonder, Prince, if the answer may lie in that phrase “gratuitous suffering”? My guess, and guessing is the best I can do here, is that our suffering is not gratuitous. Rather, I believe, it is necessary - an intrinsic and necessary corollary of freedom. If that is not the case - if God could alleviate or eliminate our earthly suffering and still bring us to precisely the same supremely worthwhile state of bliss in the eschaton - well then, I’m stumped. In fact, I’m an atheist, for that god would be no more god to me than the tinpot dictator of Calvinism.
Cheers all
Johnny
I think this is it. It obviously makes no sense to say that God causes suffering for the mere sake of suffering - and yet that he is perfectly benevolent. Suffering, therefore, cannot be gratuitous. Yet why is it here? Why does any suffering exist?
I reject the notion that it is somehow “necessary” for us to experience it. At least, pre-fall it was not necessary. It may now be but only because we have already sinned and continue to sin and therefore reject the sweeter/less painful promptings of God to become such people (which would make it not strictly necessary, since we only suffer because we contingently act such and such a way.) But I do not think that Adam - or anyone - had to suffer in order to bring about greater good. This theory – which I used to hold – ends up making God somehow metaphysically dependent on evil. So much for his asiety, all-perfection, and the light in which there is “no darkness at all”. Also, intuitively it just doesn’t make sense to say that all evil somehow makes the good greater. If that’s the case it really ceases to be evil - for it’s something that must be done in order to bring about more good. It would be evil, in fact, not to do said evil, since less good would therefore follow. Plus, if all evil brought about greater good, why should we prevent it? Why stop evil acts if they’re “necessary” for something better to come about? The idea totally contradicts our practical - and accurate - moral intuition. Evil acts should be stopped. The Holocaust should not have went on as long as it did. It should have never even happened to begin with. A lot of people get tripped up because certain goods certainly do come about because of evils; but that is only because God “maketh all things new”, not because “evil is necessary”. Would you say that a man had to experience infidelity from his wife in order for him to know how much she loved him? Of course not. But, supposing such did occur, it is possible to pull forth from that experience “new” goods.
I think suffering exists because of the creation’s freedom - a thing without which actual personal causation would be impossible, which, when taken to its logical conclusion, destroys the notion of “I” and personhood altogether. God, I think, desires more than anything that we become good; and he spends his utmost energy in continual persuasion towards this end. Every time God “forces” or purposefully removes someone’s freedom - which he may do on who knows how many occasions - he is in a sense defeated; his purpose of creation is foiled.
I think it is however impossible to tell why any particular suffering exists. But I think it is for either one of two reasons: God is “remedially punishing” us (and he may use various means - even free willed acts of others - to do this); or because of the free will of other beings. Of course, I don’t know what exact formula God has, or in what ways he has limited his response/interaction with those free willed creatures (though I assume he has, and that his influence on us is finite). But I do believe there is a formula somewhere. One would literally have to be aware of every cause and every free agent in the entire universe to determine what or how God should or should not have acted. There is a huge difference between saying “God does not or cannot have a reason for permitting this evil” and "I do not know why this evil has been permitted, but I believe a reason does exist". That difference is between an all-perfect, personal God and one totally beyond our categories of good and evil.
Who knows how much God suffers and groans for his sons and daughters to come into the true liberty he has planned for them? God puts his hand over the creations at shows him how to paint a picture. But sooner or later he must remove that hand and allow the creature to do so herself. Is it not an unspeakable joy to see a child, who had been learning to walk all the while holding on to his father’s hand, to begin, staggering, to walk without that support?
I believe that is God’s destiny for us. I believe the whole point in creating sentient beings at all was not to make them perfect sons of God, but to have them be such.
I think we’re on the same page on this one, Bob.
I would also add that, from my perspective, the problem of “hell” is one that has largely been created by bad theology and translation. In other words, our “traditional” notion of “hell”, if we can even call it that, is completely skewed. As far as I can tell from the biblical witness, the “traditional” hell does not exist, and is therefore not a problem. Purposeful redemptive judgment, yes. Endless hell of punishment, no.
Great post, Chris. I agree with pretty much everything you say. Although just to clarify my own view, I don’t believe it is ‘necessary’ for us to suffer in the sense that we have to suffer per se in order to ultimately be able to enjoy perfect bliss with God in the eschaton. Rather I think suffering is a ‘necessary’ - ie intrinsic - corollary of freedom, and of the process whereby we reach that blissful perfection. Things could not be other than they are (other than to be worse than they are). The distinction may be slight, but it’s important, I think.
Which if I read you right is what you’re saying yourself, I think.
I also have big problems with the whole concept of ‘the fall’. But that’s another story …
All the best
Johnny
But doesn’t that still make suffering necessary in the per se sense? If we cannot reach the end point without going through suffering, suffering seems to me a necessary part of creation. (On my view may have to go through suffering conditionally speaking but that is due to free wills other than God’s.)
But if that’s the case it means God either could not make a process free from suffering or that he somehow needed it to fulfill his pleasure. The former I can make no sense of because I can well imagine an existence free of suffering, and the second seems to make God metaphysically dependent on evil, if not actually evil himself. God’s will either cannot make a creation free of suffering (which I don’t see why he could not) or he does not want to.
What do you think?
I think it’s both, in a way. Of course God could make a creation free of suffering if, for instance, creation consisted of floating insensate spheres, like billiard balls. Obviously God didn’t want this type of creation. I think, though, in order to create the type of creation and type of created beings God wanted , then suffering is, as Johnny said, inevitiable and therefore ‘necessary’.
I think it is possible that all the suffering that exists in the world is somehow unavoidable or necessary, maybe as a corollary of freedom. But it is also possible that some suffering is gratuitous. I think the Incarnation ameliorates our suffering; but perhaps God is sometimes shocked by how badly we misuse our freedom. Of course, I know of philosophers of religion, I think Evan Fales is one, who argues that God could have “quarantined” the effects of Adam’s sin. I have faith in Paul’s words that our current sufferings won’t matter one whit in the joys of eternity (and, certainly, Paul and the early Christians had it pretty rough to be able to say that, being sport of Roman gladiators or what not); yet, I think it isn’t immediately obvious that all suffering is unavoidable. Moral evil, or evil due to or misuse of freedom, perhaps. What about natural evil, or evil due to forces outside human agency (natural disasters, cancer, mental illness, etc.)?
I have heard pretty good arguments for God’s having an obligation to us, but, if anybody is interested, I am still wondering if that means that God owes us infinite life, and if universalism can only be conceived in terms of infinite life (up on this thread, I am more detailed on this.) Sometimes, theologians distinguish between life having ultimate meaning vs. infinite duration, and often those who hold to or argue for the former conception tend to think that one can have a supremely meaningful life without it being of infinite duration. Certainly, I would like to have infinite life , but maybe this isn’t what God is going to give us, or maybe it is more than we are entitled to (though I hear God is generous ).
This is, for me, the most difficult aspect of the POE to reconcile with a good God. Yes, a “fallen creation” or the meddling of malevolent super-beings (fallen angels) could explain it but for a number of reasons I find that not only implausible, but incoherent. So…what I’m left with is the idea of “freedom” in the natural world, for instance in the freedom and randomness of evolution, is something that is important to God. I haven’t seen a really well articulated argument for this, but that’s what I see. Can I justify this? Perhaps not with my limited human knowledge, but I’ll say that this is not enough to show that the evil is gratuitous. Here’s a quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy about Skeptical Theism:
I have a sense that somehow, an experience of evil (or at least, pain) is necessary to our spiritual growth and formation. I don’t know how I would go about ‘proving’ this, but it almost seems self-evident in some respects. I believe there is even a scripture that says something to the effect that we are “perfected” through suffering, just as Christ was.
Adam’s sin is somehow representative of all our sin, even though I am developing serious doubts as to whether that was passed on to us in a “genetic” fashion, as the traditional model seems to hold.
At any rate; I think that as our creator and father, God does “owe” us something in the same sense that any parent owes their child something.
I do think you’re right, Melchi. People who have suffered have a stab at greatness. People who have led an easy life with no opposition can’t help it if they’re weak. That sort of life simply isn’t conducive to development of character. The first tough thing that comes along, most of us will tend to cave. After a series of tough things, we become stronger. If nothing hard ever happens, we remain weak. It’s just the way of things.
I think you’re right Melchi and Cindy about suffering (tho I still think there can be gratuitous suffering, tho hopefully not irredeemable, if that makes sense) and God owing us goodness in the same way a parent owes their children.
Would you argue, then, that, if God is able to do it (for we are evangelical universalists, not process universalists ), tGod owes us eternal life (not necessarily in opposition to eternal Hell, but perhaps annihilation after a long lifetime, maybe similar to the OT lifetimes of the first generations, 900-1,000 yrs, if you think those are literal)?
Myshkin,
I don’t know that I’d say Father OWES us eternal life exactly. (Though looking at Johnny’s posts, He may – in that sense.) This was one of my questions when I realized that eternal doesn’t necessarily mean forever. Jesus said, “. . . and this is eternal life; that they may know You and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” In this passage it only makes sense to me to translate eternal as the sort of life that is of God although technically there are a number of reasonable ways to translate it in many cases. Does this make sense? Eternal fire fell on Sodom and Gomorrah. It isn’t still burning and it didn’t burn “to the age” either (as Youngs translates it). It’s Eternal fire in the same way that some wines are French and some chocolates are Belgian. We have Indian doctors and German engineers and Silicon Valley computer experts. And we have Eternal fire.
Ask yourself what IS the God kind of life (that is, eternal life)? Full and free and unending, I think. We know that “He alone has immortality.” We have conditional mortality (as you’ve noted) and will live as long as He wills for us to live. I don’t know if there are any specific scriptures that flat-out say that we will never die, but I do think it’s plain from other things said in scripture that we can and should expect to live forever (in the modern sense of that word). For example, we are the bride of Christ. To think of a man killing his wife when he tires of her is seriously creepy. I don’t think our Bridegroom is like THAT at all. Look at all He’s gone through to get us – and all the tacky things we as the church have done – and still He pursues us. Read Hosea! We are the children (and one day the mature sons and daughters – representatives of the house of YHWH!) of God. Does our good Father intend one day to simply stop giving us life? And for what reason? Because He’s had enough of fatherhood? We are the temple of the Holy Spirit and a LOT has gone into and will go into the building of that temple. I don’t expect the Holy Spirit, who’s waited so long for us to be built together as a dwelling place to tire of this living sanctuary and wish to go back to the former state.
I guess what I’m saying here is that I’m uncomfortable with saying that God OWES us this or that, and maybe I’m wrong about feeling that way. I do think that He is our good Father and that we can and ought to trust Him to sustain us as love requires. It seems unspeakably sad to me that, after living and growing in Him for eons, we should be blotted out without a trace (save maybe His memory of us). It makes no sense. I think it would be wrong of Him to do such a thing – perhaps not because of His owing us anything, but just because it would be wrong to painfully create a living being – a beloved being – for one’s own purposes and then to blot out that being once it had served those purposes and was no longer wanted. I’ll even go so far as to say it seems a monstrous thing to do. I believe the witness of scripture as a whole points firmly to God’s intent to create an enduring, living masterpiece of love – to reveal who He is in a tangible form, and with whom to share His great dance.
Love, Cindy
It would be sad if we were blotted out of existence. My phrasing of the question, “what does God owe us?” is intentional b/c it captures, how I think most calvs at least, if not many “traditional” Christians, approach universalism, as sort of unbridled and unwarranted optimism and theological creativity (in a pejorative sense). I think, if we are to show that universalism is likely, we ought to concede as much as possible. By doing this, we demonstrate the willingness to follow the truth wherever it leads. If many non-universalists are apt to conceive of God as being holy prior to, or even against, God being love, then the more we approach the ? first from the standpoint of holiness, then the more likely we are to persuade a non-universalist, or ourselves (for I think we have to be vigilant against self-deception), that we are objective. Of course, when I start to think of myself as possibly a “worm”, “broken pottery”, “seed of Cain”, “totally depraved” or any of the descriptions that Calvinists use to describe the Reprobate, I am saddened and want very much for universalism to be T. Yet, I think it is more important that whatever doctrine is T is shown to be true, and that requires neutrality (not that I think that you aren’t neutral or objective, I am just explaining why I might seem less sympathetic to universalism, it is b/c I hope, ultimately, that it will be shown T).
What do you think Origen or the Patristic Fathers meant by ἀποκατάστασις? Could it have meant that all creatures are eventually redeemed not in sense of having enduring individual consciousness, but by being reabsorbed into God? Have we forgotten that we r God? (if that is not completely blasphemous)
Pax
The way I see it, is that each of us have Christ within. This is the True Self. Our true self is humble and compassionate love. When I focus on negative things all the time my world becomes one of negativity. But when I am grateful for the good in my life I have a different perspective. Understand, GOD OWES ME NOTHING. When I get into entitlement I am constantly angry, resentful, and frustrated. Entitlement is a LIE. A sense of entitlement undermines the ability to freely accept life’s blessings. As Bill Wilson and the professor of psychology, Robert Emmons, have realized, resentment comes from a perception of unfairness. No gift of grace will bring joy to a person who thinks they have the right to everything. Ingratitude is the natural offshoot of resentment. The ungrateful, envious, complaining one cripples himself. People without an attitude of entitlement are satisfied with what they have and are motivated to make a living for themselves instead of thinking life owes them.
Myshkin,
If you’d like to discuss Greek meanings, then I think we’d better tag [tag]Jason Prat[/tag] and [tag]Paidion[/tag]. Those two could help you more than anyone here that I know of (or at least anyone who’s here with any frequency.)
Prince Myshkin asked:
100% agree .
Prince
You ask, does God owe us ‘eternal’ (infinite, everlasting) life? My answer is yes, for the same reasons I cited in my earlier post.
God is ‘obligated’, by dint of his nature as perfect, infinite love, to do his very best for us. A heavenly existence that will end at some point is - to my mind at least - not as good as one that will last into eternity, hence not the very best God can give us.
Of course, no-one knows what ‘eternity’ will be like. If we imagine it as purely linear, with one day succeeding the next in an infinite, endless procession, then it doesn’t sound like much fun. TS Eliot understood that, hence his epigraph to The Wasteland, from *The Satyricon *by Petronius:
“Nam Sibyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi
in ampulla pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent:Σιβυλλα
τι θελεις; respondebat illa:αποθανειν θελω.”
which translates thus:
"I saw with my own eyes the Sibyl at Cumae hanging in a cage, and when the boys said to her: “Sibyl, what do you want?” she answered: “I want to "die.”
Explanation from t-interweb page on The Wasteland:
“Sibyl of Cumae was a prophetess in service to Apollo and a great beauty. Apollo wished to take her as his lover and offered her anything she desired. She asked to live for as many years as there were grains in a handful of dust. Apollo granted her wish, but still she refused to become his lover. In time, Sibyl came to regret her boon as she grew old but did not die. She lived for hundreds of years, each year becoming smaller and frailer, Apollo having given her long life but not eternal youth. When Trimalchio speaks of her in the Satyricon, she is little more than a tourist attraction, tiny, ancient, confined, and longing to die.”
Yikes! I reckon ‘eternity’ has got to be better than that!
J
I agree, Johnny. It has to be better than that! I also agree that God does have an obligation to do his best for us based on his nature.
The problem I see with this is that it seems to me that God puts a lot of effort and sacrifice into individuating his creatures. In fact, I believe much of the POE can be attributed to this process. I think God wants his creatures to be like God in character but separate creatures he can commune with based on his nature as Love. What this means in eternity I can only speculate about, but it seems that the risen Christ is best example to base our speculation on as the “Firstborn of many…”