Problems of suffering 2: Free will, simplified version

Google

As I noted in the previous article:

Years ago, a good friend suggested a part-time, ministry venture for me to complement my main employment. The idea was for me to work on presenting a more relatable and less academic version of my British research theses work, publicly. 

I had considered my own parachurch ministry as a possibility from before I began formal education. Recently, two other people in Christian leadership have made similar suggestions. 

This work would perhaps lead to a booklet and lecture series. My own reasoning is that problems of suffering would be more effectively practical than would problems of evil.

In regard to problems of suffering and my concept of human free will, I shall attempt to simplify.

This is a difficult task!

(The more academic explanations is brackets. These would not be part of the simplified presentation, but can be offered when needed.)

Assuming human problems of suffering exist, how does an infinite (unlimited), eternal, sovereign God allow suffering and evil? Assuming God is also perfectly good and holy (set apart).

My view based in the Protestant tradition that heavily emphasizes God's sovereignty.

(Reformed theology, in my case assisted by philosophical argumentation within philosophy of religion.)

God as unlimited in nature (infinite), either directly wills or indirectly allows (wills) all thoughts, acts/actions of his limited (finite) creatures.

Simultaneously, when a human being with significant free will embraces thoughts, acts/actions, directly or indirectly willed by God; this means there is significant human moral accountability, by the use of what I have coined, limited free will.

(The same can be stated for angelic beings that God has created, assuming they have significant free will and significant moral accountability.).

If significant free will from limited, human beings, does not exist in regard to thoughts, acts/actions; in other words, thoughts, acts/actions are forced or coerced by an external force, then significant moral human accountability does not exist. I would reason that God is not noting human moral accountability with thoughts acts/actions. These would however, be aspects of the fallen creation (Genesis 1-3).

Therefore, where there is significant human free will, limited free will, then person's embrace thoughts, acts/actions.

(My view is philosophically defined as compatibilism as opposed to incompatibilism. Both views agree that God (or an external force) cannot reasonably force or coerce, significantly free thoughts, acts/actions, where there is moral, human responsibility. Where God (or an external force) directly or indirectly forces or coerces human thoughts, acts/actions, there would not be significant, human responsibility.)

(However, compatibilism reasons God as first cause, simultaneously wills, directly or indirectly, all these significantly free thoughts, acts/actions, where there is moral responsibility and it is not forced or coerced. Incompatibilism reasons these thoughts, acts/actions cannot be simultaneously willed by the first cause and remain significantly free.)

(Incompatibilism is often associated with concepts of libertarian free will.)

Human free will, limited free will, although willed secondarily by human beings from their sinful nature, can produce evil and suffering when God willingly allows human opposition to his perfect will, in what is called sin.

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=10817&search_id=&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Key problem of evil texts: December 11 2016

Facebook

Problems of suffering 1: Damaged and ended relationships

One of my first desktop photos from my old UMAX. (Apple)

Problems of suffering 1: Damaged and ended relationships

Years ago, a good friend suggested a part-time, ministry venture for me to complement my main employment.

The idea was for me to work on presenting a more relatable and less academic version of my British research theses work, publicly.

I had considered my own parachurch ministry as a possibility from before I began formal education.

Recently, two other people in Christian leadership have made similar suggestions.

This work would perhaps lead to a booklet and lecture series. My own reasoning is that problems of suffering would be more effectively practical than would problems of evil.

It has also been suggested to me to that I present my personal struggles with problems of suffering. This is not an outlandish suggestion, even academically, I remember distinctly that John S. Feinberg shared aspects of personal problems of suffering within his text the Many Faces of Evil, which was my key and main PhD text.

This will be a series. Not all my posts on this website will take this approach.

Based on Eric Vossen’s work, pages 21-28:

He presented three coping strategies for problems of suffering, which I will paraphrase for this article:

These strategies parallel his three coping models.

Retaliation 

1. The removal of suffering over time. Within a Christian, biblical tradition, God should be trusted as sovereign and considered able to intervene in problems of suffering either naturally or supernaturally. God is the supreme judge of sin. Even though persons are sinful and judged by God as sinners, God also provides salvation for believers.

I will add that this is Scripture based in religious history.

Plan 

2. God has both a temporal and everlasting plan for those within the Christian Church. In Jesus Christ, suffering leads to our eventual salvation.

Compassion

3. The love and support of friends and family. This represents to Vossen, the love and compassion of the immanent God (God is near, present and works in his creation) through his followers.

Personally

My Mother (The Boss) now lives down the road at a residence for the elderly and those with like physical conditions. She was born disabled and now has significant dementia.We can no longer have a reasonable, intellectual discussion of any kind. We can no longer have a reasonable discussion of any kind. It is as if she is largely already mentally deceased.

The Boss being from the traditional generation and culturally very conservative, and me being from the generation x and a moderate conservative; in my opinion, led to arguments over the years. We basically agreed politically and religiously, but argued as I would consider myself a much more out of the box thinker than was the Boss, that was kind of set in her ways.

But, the Boss was someone I could tell my life story too, and she listened with interest and was a fantastic help. Now that is gone, forever in this realm.

But what about Vossen’s model?

Retaliation?

The Boss  and I are both believers in the Gospel and are therefore covered by the applied atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ. Therefore, I should see the Boss again, post-mortem, as spirit, in Paradise (Luke 23, 2 Corinthians 12, Philippians 1). With the entire Church, New Testament promises shall lead to resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) and the eventual restored physical realm and culminated Kingdom of God (Revelation 21-22).

Plan

The above indicates, biblically, within historical Scripture, a plan for those within the Christian Church to eventually be completed. Those truly in the Christian Church, saved from sin and death and having everlasting life.

Compassion

In the Church, at least, the situation of the Boss allows my church, my friends, family and strangers alike, to show compassion that has promise. This opposed to sentimental theology (please see archives).

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

VOSSEN, H.J.M. ERIC (1993) ‘Images of God and Coping with Suffering’, Translated by S. Ralston, in Journal of Empirical Theology, Volume 6, pp. 19-38. Kampen, The Netherlands, Journal of Empirical Theology.

End in itself

Vancouver

End in itself 

Defined from Philosopher, Blackburn:

Quote

Something desired or aimed at or valued purely for its own sake, rather than as means to anything else (119).

Dictionary.com

Quote

A purpose or goal desired for its own sake (rather than to attain something else). For example, For me, writing books is an end in itself; they don't really make that much money . This expression employs the noun end in the sense of “final cause or purpose,” a usage dating from the early 1500s.

Philosophy meets Theology...

Non-exhaustive:

I deduce that reasonably, theologically, as a biblical Christian, serving God in obedience, would be an end in itself. In other words, it is the aim, regardless of potential positives and negatives resulting. In some instances within the Church, serving God may be an end to itself, just because it is the right thing to do as those in Jesus Christ already have the atoning and resurrection work applied to them through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit (John 3, Titus 3) and as well have everlasting life promised to them (John 3: 16 and Revelation 21-22).

In other instances, some may serve God for potential biblical post-mortem rewards, as there is a judgement seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5: 10). But any rewards granted are within salvation that is provided by grace through faith alone, for good works and not by good works (Ephesians 1-2).

Some may serve God in obedience, by seeking the salvation of others, including friends and family.

There are many reasons to serve God, obediently.

The Scripture notes that some preach the Gospel for questionable motives and yet it is still preached.

Philippians 1

New American Standard Bible

15 Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; 16 the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; 17 the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice, 19 for I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, 20 according to my earnest expectation and hope, that I will not be put to shame in anything, but with all boldness, Christ will even now, as always, be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. 

Motives are difficult to judge by human beings and at times people have mixed motives.

However, in general I can apply 'end in itself' philosophy as an aspect of philosophy of religion that connects to my Christian faith and theology.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Deeds

December 24 2007

By the way, this new Blogger format is my favourite so far. It is modern but allows some of the previous features to return.

I had lunch with a new pastoral friend, today. We discussed 'Calvinism' and infant baptism, and the view of some, often hyper-Calvinists, that those deceased infants that did not receive infant baptism, are damned to hell.

I agreed with my pastoral friend's objection.

Yet, for the most part these same people reason that God alone chooses those for salvation, apart from any human work.

My counter, featuring edited work from my December 2007 article:

Erickson explains in agreement with Reformed theology, that infants begin life with a corrupted nature and guilt as a consequence of sin. Erickson (1994: 637) (See Romans, Galatians). He cautiously reasons that they are not condemned to everlasting hell since they never reach a level of moral competence. Erickson (1994: 638).

He writes that Jesus did not regard children as basically sinful and guilty as they were held out as examples of the type of people that would inherit the Kingdom of God, as in Matthew 18:3, 19:14. Erickson (1994: 638). Erickson deduces that children are not under God’s condemnation for sin until attaining an age of responsibility in moral and spiritual matters. Erickson (1994: 638).

If the child dies he/she would be regenerated, as all believers need to be from his/her sinful state (1 Corinthians 15). The child will experience the same future existence as others that reached the age of moral responsibility and received salvation. Erickson (1994: 639). For deceased children and those who are persons that are mentally deficient, it can be deduced that since they do not arrive at a reasonably competent point of consciously rejecting God, and reasonable understanding of the punishment for this rebellion, they may be regenerated by God and included within the culminated Kingdom of God after death. I would view this as reasonable speculation.

Biblically persons appear to be judged for sins, which result from a sinful nature, and not for the sinful nature itself. In Revelation 20:12, those persons who are thrown into the lake of fire are judged for their deeds, and therefore persons are judged for deeds and not nature.

Mounce states here that no one is so important to be immune from judgment, and no one is so unimportant to make judgment inappropriate. Mounce (1990: 365). A non-regenerated child or mentally deficient person would still have a corrupt nature unacceptable for God’s presence, but I speculate that a certain mental capacity is required to be everlastingly punished for sinful deeds. 

Those within Reformed Covenant theology traditions, Presbyterians, Baptists, and others, often hold to concepts that children of believers are saved, if they die before the age of accountability.

G.N.M. Collins writes that Reformed confessions believe in the possibility of infants being saved. Collins (1996: 560). There is the understanding that all elect children will be saved, despite the incapability of response. Collins (1996: 560). The children have no claim to salvation themselves, but receive the same sovereign grace as elected adults. Collins (1996: 560).

I have previously presented this contrasting view within the comments of the Infant Baptism article. It could be stated within Reformed tradition, at least, that children and the mentally deficient outside of the New Covenant of Christ, could be everlastingly separated from God and judged according to deeds within their limited knowledge. Since children and all persons have corrupt natures, they do sin, and therefore could be everlastingly judged for these deeds and a nature which opposes God's, without having a competent understanding of God they are rejecting and the punishment they are receiving. It is possible that their punishment shall be at the level of limited understanding. I view this as a theological possibility that cannot be overlooked. Dr. Earl Radmacher pointed this out in theology class at Trinity Western University in the late 1990;s.

But, the concept of everlasting separation in the New Testament appears to be one of God separating those from his presence that embraced their sinful nature and committed sinful deeds with a definite, competent and not largely deficient understanding. My personal deduction is that when persons with normal mental abilities reach adulthood, or the age of adult like mental competence, they are candidates for God’s judgment. This age of accountability could occur at an earlier age, but I reason that most persons are generally still rather childlike in the early teens.

COLLINS, G.N.M. (1996) ‘Infant Salvation’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.