God and two wills

Millard Erickson writes that God’s perfect will, will 1 as he calls it, is God’s general intention and what pleases him most. Erickson (1994: 361). God’s will 2, is God’s specific intention in every given situation and what God actually decides will occur. Erickson (1994: 361). This is permissible will. Erickson explains that there are many times when evil and sin occur that God, in his perfect will, does not wish these events to take place, but permits them. Erickson (1994: 361). Erickson explains that with will 2, since God does not intervene to prevent particular evil and sin, he permissibly wills it. Erickson (1994: 361). Therefore, Biblically and theologically, in one sense, God causes evil, and this was a key question within my problem of evil questionnaire. When God does not intervene and prevent evil and sin, he therefore willingly allows it and is the cause of it, in a sense. Erickson points out that God never tells someone to commit evil or sin. Erickson (1994: 361). Since God is infinite (limitless), omnipotent (almighty, all-powerful), and omniscient (all-knowing) when he does not follow his perfect will causing only good and, instead, follows his permissible will, which at times causes evil and sin, he therefore, theologically, is the cause of evil. It needs to be stated that by God permissibly and willingly allowing evil does not make him evil and sinful in nature. John Calvin reasons that God’s motives remain pure in the simultaneous willing of human actions that are evil and sin. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40). Calvin’s idea is that free human actions were first willed and determined by God. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40). God’s motives in willing an action were always pure, working toward the greater good even while human beings freely sinned. (1543)(1996: 37-40). I submit that the problem of evil occurs for God's greater purposes within his permissible will.

In both theology and philosophy, compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism, states that God can simultaneously will significantly free human actions, which are not committed under compulsion. Feinberg (1986: 24). Feinberg (1994: 60). Within this type of model, there is a primary force that determines all actions and human beings will and commit these actions with significant freedom, secondarily. Pojman (1996: 596). Stace (1952)(1976: 29). Thiessen reasons that God’s decrees are what the creator either efficaciously (the desired effect) or permissively wills to pass. Thiessen (1956: 147). Thiessen explains that human freedom and motives are not eliminated from human actions. Thiessen (1956: 147). Both Thiessen and Calvin state that God is not the author of sin. Thiessen (1956: 147) Calvin (1543)(1996: 40). I deduce that the reasoning here is that although God and humanity both will sinful human actions, God's motives are never sinful, while human motives are. Therefore God is actually the author of good intentions through sin, while human beings are the authors of sinful intentions through sin. I should state that God would work through the evil deeds of demonic beings in a similar way.

Job 1:8 And the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job?"

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

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

FEINBERG. J.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

A philosophy of singleness: part 3

Whitby Abbey and Saint Mary's Church, England (photo from trekearth.com)

There are some persons that downplay physical attraction’s importance in romantic relationships, and I am not one of those people. A few people that do not know me well have suggested that I am looking for a supermodel (supermodel type). They are incorrect and this is not an aspect of my romantic philosophy. At Chucky and Philosophy Man’s birthday party, a friend of Chucky’s sarcastically suggested to me that a certain supermodel was now single, but that she was probably too old for me. I am looking for a woman with whom I can have mutual spiritual, intellectual, and physical attraction. Some in my family would suggest that I should lower my physical standards in attraction, especially since I have doorman and not pretty boy looks. I attempt to look for a young woman that is at least minimally significantly physically attractive to me, and not maximally significantly attractive to me, but there must be significant physical attraction, although I view spiritual and intellectual mutual attraction as more important in romantic relationships. An important part of my work in theodicy is relevant here. Can I really be significantly satisfied by becoming romantically involved with a woman that is below my minimal physical standards? Are physical standards simply a matter of choice, or are they a matter of both nature and choice?

W. Tullian Tchividjian explains the view of Jonathan Edwards, where Edwards writes that people in their fallen state are freely able to choose what they most desire. Tchividjian (2001: 1). Edwards notes that because of corrupted human nature human beings are free only to sin. Tchividjian (2001: 2). Human beings therefore freely choose within their sinful nature to disobey God. The choices of acts made by human beings do not depart from the motives and desires which fuel them as the motives and desires come from human nature. Edwards (1754)(2006: 4.4: 3). Within Edwards' system God's sovereign will would influence the nature of the elect in order that they would have motives and desires leading to following Christ. John S. Feinberg reasons that desires and not free will are the cause of human rebellion against God. Feinberg (1994: 128). I speculate that human nature and consciousness (the ability to have self-awareness) does not choose to be as it is, but was created by God, and has been corrupt since the fall of humanity. From consciousness and self-awareness, human beings would develop motives and desires, and eventually make limited free will choices. The primary cause of human acts is determined by God who creates the human nature, and influences human choices. The secondary cause of human acts is the individuals that act according to nature, consciousness, motives, desires, and a limited free will influenced by God. It may be correctly pointed out that what God determines and causes must necessarily (logically must occur) take place. However, I do not think that God coerces or forces individuals to commit actions.

My point here is that the desire known as physical attraction comes from our God given human nature, and consciousness, and is expressed in motives, desires, and a limited free will where by which we make our choices. In general terms, and not only with physical attraction, God is willing what occurs in an individual by influence, and willingly allows the person to sin for God's divine purposes. God can also influence both the regenerate and unregenerate person for his purposes. Physical attraction can be traced back to an individual’s nature. By nature an individual will not be attracted to each and every person of the opposite sex. It seems that most persons are not attracted to the majority of persons of the opposite sex. A problem is that sin greatly complicates the matter. A partial remedy I have for this problem is for Christians who are single to only hold out for those they find minimally significantly physically attractive within their own nature, consciousness and desires.

Therefore the person can choose a person to potentially date that is minimally significantly physically attractive and pay more attention to the spiritual and intellectual aspects of the person. I reason that far too many Christians, especially ones considered very attractive in Western society, are rejecting those for which they have minimal significant physical attraction, in favour of those for which they have closer to maximal significant physical attraction. These persons may at times ignore spiritual and intellectual qualities in others. It is therefore no surprise that from my findings on dating sites and interaction with Christians personally, that many Christians date and marry non-believers, since Christians are a minority in Western society and it would be more difficult in the Christian community than in secular society, to find someone close to the standard of maximally significantly physically attractive. It would also be easier to meet minimal standards in the secular world, but the secular world cannot provide persons that spiritually and intellectually belong to Christ.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.http://www.jonathanedwards.com/

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

TCHIVIDJIAN, W. TULLIAN, (2001) ‘Reflections on Jonathan Edwards’ View of Free Will, in IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 3, Number 51, December 17 to December 23, Fern Park, Florida, IIIM Magazine Online.

thekingpin68 is rated

http://mingle2.com/blog-rating

This rating was determined based on the presence of the following words:

death (134x) hell (65x) pain (57x) dangerous (13x) dead (11x) murder (7x) hurt (4x) abortion (3x) dike (2x) kill (1x)

Thanks to Lawrence of Arabia from Revolt in the Desert, in my links, for the link to this amusing site that rates blogs. I looked at the ratings for all my linked blogs with both of my theology blogs, my blogs excluded, and one other blog had a NC-17 rating, and two other blogs were rated Restricted.

Please check out my other theology related blog for its rating:

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2007/07/satire-and-theology-is-rated.html

Pray Harder!

Central, Wales

1 John 5:14-15 from the New American Standard Bible

And this is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to his will, He hears us.

And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked before Him.

Henry Clarence Thiessen writes that asking things according to God’s will is an aspect of abiding and having confidence in God. Thiessen (1956: 399). It suggests that the person praying has a correct condition of the heart. Thiessen (1956: 399). In his article, Theology of Prayer, Alan Richardson explains that from Jesus’ perspective, all of our prayers are answered, but not necessarily in the way we would have chosen. Richardson (1999: 458). D.G. Bloesch notes that God wants his followers to be in partnership with him, but prayer is fundamentally about sharing personal needs with God and being conformed to his divine will and purposes. Bloesch (1996: 867).

I reason that theology from 1 John 5:14-15, should conclude that Christians should ask God that they will pray and make requests along the lines of God’s will. Prayer should be primarily made for personal fellowship with God, and secondarily for personal requests. Even if an individual Christian is primarily being guided by the Holy Spirit in life, there is no guarantee that each and every heard prayer request will be answered according to the will of the human follower, but will be answered according to God’s will and purposes.

On Sunday, I had a discussion with a well-meaning young woman at church. She is one of these people that is always trying to be positive. She was telling me how she had been very down in an earlier part of her life and she prayed and God significantly lifted her spirits. She strongly believes that the Lord assisted her, and I am not trying to intellectually challenge this claim. My disagreement with her is when she tries to make her experience, theology for every case. She stated that in regard to me being single, I should not discuss or list legitimate reasons why I am single, but simply pray about it. I informed her that I have prayed about it for more than 20 years, and that God is sovereign and does not have to answer my prayers the way I want them to be answered. She then stated, pray harder! I am not using ad hominem here and attacking her personally with a name, but this really struck me as ding-dong theology. I am basically stating that it is foolish theology. God seemingly answered her prayer and gave her significant blessings when dealing with problems, but many believers throughout the ages, and today, have many problems and her theology is presumptuous to assume that persons simply need to pray harder to overcome difficulties. In regard to theodicy and the problem of evil, this type of theology is an example of the difficulty of placing too much emphasis on human free will, instead of God’s sovereignty, as if in every case, persons are suffering because they are doing something wrong, and not praying hard enough. 1 John 5:14-15 does not state that if we pray hard enough all of our prayers will be answered to our satisfaction, it states that our prayers will be heard when made within God’s will. Requests, as Richardson states, will be answered, but not necessarily according to what we as Christians desire. It must be remembered in regard to theodicy and the problem of evil, that God meets the needs of Christians in order to fulfill his purposes, and not necessarily in order to provide maximal human fulfillment in this present earthly realm.

BLOESCH, D.G. (1996) ‘Prayer’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.) Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

RICHARDSON, ALAN (1999) ‘Prayer, Theology of’ in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, London, SCM Press Ltd.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.


My latest Facebook Graffiti