'God is not my buddy' is a new presentation based on thoughts I have had the last few months.
'Two types of knowledge' is again work from my MPhil/PhD theses that I have presented prior to having more readership. Therefore it is still new to most of you and I have no problem presenting it once again.
Thanks, and comments are appreciated.
God is not my buddy
I hold to orthodox Christian theology within the Reformed tradition. I came to this not primarily by family or by being led to the Lord by a person or persons, but by God providing influences as a child and eventually through years of academic study where with God's help I sought to be as objective as possible, although I do not claim complete objectivity.
I reason that in God's love I am saved by grace through faith in the atoning and resurrection work of Christ, and Ephesians 2: 8-10 is a good summary of my reasoning.
Ephesians 2:8-10 (New American Standard Bible)
8For (A)by grace you have been saved (B)through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is (C)the gift of God;
9(D)not as a result of works, so that (E)no one may boast.
10For we are His workmanship, (F)created in (G)Christ Jesus for (H)good works, which God (I)prepared beforehand so that we would (J)walk in them.
A buddy of mine would rid me of many of my very annoying problems, if possible. If reasonably possible, a buddy would rid me of my vitreous floaters if he/she was an opthamologist. A buddy would assist me with overcoming my sleep apnea, if he/she was a qualified surgeon. A buddy would help me find a good woman to marry, if he/she could.
Basically, from my problem of evil research, I could conclude that often the critic of the New Testament God, rejects this God because this God will often not do the good things for each of us that a buddy would do.
A buddy would not let us suffer and die if he or she could prevent it, and would not, for the most part, allow our dearest friends to suffer and die.
And yet, within Christianity God is viewed as this perfect and holy God and yet so much evil exists.
I reason God created human beings in such a way that he knew they would freely fall into sin. They were not forced to coerced to do so, and yet God willed it. God would save those he predestined and the elect would have experienced the problem of evil, sin, suffering, salvation in Christ, death, and the results of the atoning and resurrection work of Christ culminated in each person within their personal resurrection and existence in the everlasting Kingdom.
In my PhD thesis I speculate that these were the type of human beings that God wished to develop. If Adam and Eve or the first human like beings had been different and were significantly free and never committed evil acts in thought and deed, they would not have developed into the type of human beings the creator God appears to ultimately desire. God has every right and the power to create the significantly good and free creatures he wants. He has chosen to have redeemed and restored human physical beings in his culminated Kingdom, rather than sinless ones, other than Jesus Christ himself, of course, who is both God and man.
I do not agree with theistic and Christian free will theorists that cite incompatibilism and that God could not create significantly free beings that would never commit evil acts. In agreement with compatibilism and many within Reformed theology, I reason this limits God's sovereignty, and frankly overlooks the fact that angels are likely significantly free creatures and many of them stayed loyal to God and never fell into evil. This means that God very likely created significantly free spiritual beings that never sinned and committed evil acts, and therefore I conclude that God could have made significantly free physical creatures that were human like that would not have sinned and committed wrong acts in thought and deed.
The fact that God chose to create human beings as he did does not make him less than perfectly good and holy, as his motives in willingly allowing the problem evil remain pure and the infinite God can use all the sinful acts of fallen finite creatures for the greater good, which includes a culminated everlasting Kingdom.
But, God is not my buddy, although my most important friend, and no one is the Church should treat him as a buddy in this realm. In the completed Kingdom of God, I reason that discipline will not include the use of suffering (Revelation 21: 4), but I am not ruling out that even perfect finite human beings do need direction from God that could be considered a type of discipline. Will we be buddies with Christ? Well perhaps in a sense, he had friends while on this earth, and it shall be interesting to see how things unfold.
Two types of knowledge
Concerning my research on the problem of evil, within formal philosophy comes two important terms related to how human beings obtain knowledge. For those not well educated in theology or philosophy, please do not be intimidated by the terms if they are new to you. Remembering the actual terms in my view is not as important as understanding to some degree, the concepts that may arise in discussions concerning the problem of evil. The terms are a priori and a posteriori. I shall review these terms and related concepts in an obviously non-exhaustive manner.
Louis P. Pojman explains that the term a priori comes from the Latin “preceding” and is knowledge that is not based on sense experience but is innate or known to human beings by the meanings of words and definitions. Pojman (1996: 595). Arthur Pap defines a priori knowledge as being independent of experience. Pap (1973: 666). Since this knowledge leads to truth independent of experience, once a concept is understood it will be seen as necessarily true logically, meaning that it will not be refuted at any time empirically (through the use of the senses). Pap (1973: 667). Simon Blackburn notes that a proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known without experience of a certain set of events in the actual world. Blackburn allows for some experience to be obtained in order for a priori knowledge to occur. Blackburn (1996: 21). He explains that this type of knowledge is very controversial and it is not clear how pure thought without the use of experience can lead to any true knowledge at all. Blackburn (1996: 21). Some empiricists have attempted to deny that any real knowledge can be obtained from a priori means. Blackburn (1996: 21).
Laurence BonJour notes that many empiricists would hold that all actual philosophical concepts are derived and known through experience. BonJour (1996: 30). Blackburn points out that Immanuel Kant dealt with this issue as it was supposed that a priori concepts cannot be understood from experience alone but come from presuppositions in a mode of thought about reality. Blackburn (1996: 22).
In the Critique of Pure Reason of 1781 and revised in 1787, Kant explains that the forms of appearance from which sensations can be understood are not themselves the empirical sensations. Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66). BonJour states that a priori knowledge is independent of empirical experience, meaning that something can be accepted as knowledge if it does not depend upon sensory experience. BonJour (1996: 29).
Very importantly in my view, BonJour explains that a deductively valid argument can use a priori reasoning, even if the correctness of the argument is challenged. BonJour (1996: 30). This would be very important for non-empirical reasoning in the areas of theology and philosophy in regard to the problem of evil and other topics, but even in other disciplines such as scientific theory where logical and reasonable deductions are at times made without empirical evidence. In other words, it is possible to deduce with logic, reason, and argumentation, truth, even without empirical evidence. BonJour mentions that rationalists that state God exists are using a priori reasoning. I do not deny that human beings have presuppositions in the areas of knowledge, but I reason that experience and God given nature influences those concepts. It seems doubtful to me that human beings can have philosophical presuppositions without some innate understanding and experience to make sense of reality in order to presuppose.
It is also Biblical and reasonable to deduce that God creates human beings with certain innate understanding of reality that will be assisted by experience. Romans 1:19 explains that God made human beings with a natural understanding of his existence. Perhaps this would be a priori knowledge and would not exist entirely on human presuppositions. The existence of natural knowledge of God does not necessarily mean that human beings worship or obey God.
Pojman writes that a posteriori comes the Latin “the later” and is knowledge that is obtained from human sense experience only, as in the five senses. Pojman (1996: 595). Blackburn reasons that something can be known a posteriori when it cannot be known a priori. Blackburn (1996: 21-22). From a Christian perspective, God through Jesus Christ has revealed himself to finite humanity in an effective, limited, empirical fashion, and this would be considered a posteriori knowledge of God, although God as pure spirit remains beyond the physical senses.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘A priori/A posteriori’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 21-22. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973) (eds), ‘A priori knowledge: Introduction’, A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan.
http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
If God was our buddy the man is white could be correct instead of in error. I am not denying God's ability to heal or provide various kinds of blessings within his sovereign will.
