I want to be clear about this one thing brothers, if God is not constrained by shared reality then there is no point in claiming that God is good or that he is loving or merciful. By making claims such as these, it is always implied that the words you use have the same meaning when applied to God as they do in the common understanding.
When I say ‘constrained’ I don’t mean that God is not almighty. Of course he is almighty. He is as powerful as he needs to be to accomplish his purposes. But what I mean is that if for example he had decided to cause a church to grow up in a certain town but there were some evil people there who didn’t want any church in their town, God is capable of destroying those evil people or thwarting their plans as easy as batting an eyelid. The point about constraint is that the presence of such evil people constrains God. He can’t cause the church to grow in that town without first getting rid of the evil guys. He can’t just imagine the church there and lo and behold it is, because the evil guys are
real. Plus, God can’t even
want to start a church in a certain town unless that town existed in the first place. The very existence of the town is a pre-condition of him desiring to build a church there. So even though God is easily powerful enough to handle any situation, every act of his that has anything to do with his creation, is an act that has a context that must be respected. I thought that The Incredible Platypus already stated this well and no one appears to have disputed it:
We are not completely free beings. We cannot simply do whatever we want when we want. If we could, then no one could judge us, because effectively, the universe is your playground. Or to put it another way, if anyone did judge us, that judgement would be worthless. You would define what right and wrong is.
We are under all sorts of restrictions and constraints that prevent us from doing things. This means that we have to make choices between several courses of action. These choices have to be meaningful of course. That is, the effect of choosing one course of action is different to the effect of another course of action.
If, in the manner I described above, a building is in a city is worthless to you, then for all the difference it made, you could walk through it as if it were thin air. As far as you are concerned, it does not exist.
Of course in the real world, value does not work like this. Every object and person has a value (in the sense I described above) to you simply by being there. You may not care whether something is there or not, but this will not change the fact that it is.
So it is clear that when we ask the question, ‘Is God moral?’, we are using the word ‘moral’
in the commonly understood sense of consistently acting morally or with integrity and goodness. However, if we cannot say that God is real, then we can neither say that he is moral. Because the language we use implies a consistent
reality. This conclusion is unpalatable to dualists such as Calvinists and some orthodox and Catholics because of course they would like to be able to say that God is moral.
Why would they like to say this? The following passage is very illuminating:
Matthew 21:23-26
23 When He entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to Him while He was teaching, and said, “By what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority?”
24 Jesus said to them, “I will also ask you one
[d]thing, which if you tell Me, I will also tell you by what authority I do these things.
25 The baptism of John was from what
source, from heaven or from men?” And they
began reasoning among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say to us, ‘Then why did you not believe him?’
26 But if we say, ‘From men,’ we fear the
[e]people; for they all regard John as a prophet.”
27 And answering Jesus, they said, “We do not know.” He also said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.
The bigwigs didn’t like to put in words the real consequences of their beliefs because it would be unpalatable to the crowds. Calvinists don’t want to admit that it is a consequence of their belief system that God is not moral. But this is exactly what their belief system implies. It is unavoidable. This is quite apart from their doctrine that
everything, both good and bad, that happens in the world, is his will. Surely, this cannot be clearer? For how can a God who wills both good and bad be held to be anything other than totally amoral? This is what they don’t want to tell you explicitly.
Sometimes, however, it does happen that a Calvinist will admit to these conclusions. B57 for example often claims that God does not love everyone, nor is it his purpose to save everyone. I’m afraid I can’t quote a reference for that because the relevant post was deleted in the cull a few months back. The Calvinist view of God as amoral comes across clearly there. Nearer at home, we have a similar admission from Lon, where he states that we, like a bowling ball, have no say in what we do in life and that everything is the work of God:
Yes 'limit' means closed/stopped. Wherever the end of the rope reaches, is completely knowable. Relationship both opens up what doesn't exist, but it also closes other doors. I completely know, everything I've ever created. There can't be an accident happening to my creation. It is all my work.
Which describes God (the bowlerama that is constant) and me the bowler, with what I can and can't do. The alley isn't going to see anything different and will know before I release the ball what is going to happen next. So, again, even the Open View is logically capable and seeing that the system is fully knowable.
Sure, but where that is a constrain to you and I, it is not to God. Limited example: He can be at the play AND at the game. You and I are stuck with a limitation. For us, it is closed.
Agree. He is the bowler , we are the clay, er bowling ball.
At least here, he seems to concur that we ourselves are not responsible. And likening us to bowling balls (his analogy), he seems to also admit that we are not responsible for what we do. I am sure that now that I have pointed this out, he will want to retract this or qualify it. Why? As I said above. This kind of conclusion is unpalatable to most people and so the Calvinist likes to keep it quiet – for fear of the crowds. And, given once again, that Lon’s analogy makes God responsible for
everything that happens in the world, the inference that God is amoral is inescapable.
These conclusions about Calvinism and other forms of dualism are the logical consequence of God not sharing reality with his creation. In the Calvinist belief system, God is responsible for everything in the created world. Any perceived open interaction between real things in our world is ultimately an illusion because these interactions are not real. That’s what I meant when I first stated that things have meaning in themselves and that moments in the course of history arise solely from themselves and cannot be predicted. Calvinism ultimately denies this: everything that happens is determined externally by God and value can only be extrinsic. You are only what God says you are, you do only what God wills you to do. That is why it is a logical consequence of Calvinistic dualism (shared largely by Roman Catholicism and eastern orthodoxy) not only that God himself is amoral but that morality itself is only an illusion. The truth is that morality can only exist in a world where real things, real beings, including God himself, are allowed to interact openly; and the fact that God is also real is the proof that God, too, is moral.
I applaud Clete's efforts to bring some rationality into the debate by insisting on the value of logic. Lon is obviously feeling hot under the collar over this, when here:
Hi Clete. I think this an important discussion. I'd love to see it formally debated by two who are a bit more apt than you and I, and by that I mean I don't think we communicate as well to do it justice that I'd like to see. A one-on-one or Battle Royale would be excellent.
he tries to make the issue go away by forming a committee of 2 that will hopefully never come back to report on the issue, thus allowing him to avoid further embarrassment on the subject. Aside from also implying that Clete is incapable of debating the issue himself. Perhaps he hopes that a knight in shining armour will come to rescue him? It's a great debating ploy: claim that neither you nor your opponent are technically capable of doing the debate justice and so avoid the need to admit you are just wrong. But it is interesting that Lon says exactly the opposite in another post:
Not that I disagree with logic, just another's rendition of it. I am in the upper 5 percentile of Intelligence quotients so think I've a fair handle on logic. You can't do well on logic tests without having that firm of a grasp.
So what is it to be, Lon? Have you got a 'fair handle on logic', as you say in one post, or are you 'not apt enough to do it justice' as you say in another post? Why not for once answer in a straight manner, with clear words that we can all understand?
And here:
In general, I think the exhortation is fine but I don't have a problem with all of the examples given as you do. Specifically, however, are you talking about objections you've received as an Open Theist? If so, we are not talking about giving a reason for the hope within us regarding specifically the gospel, but rather the difference between Open Theism and all contenders in-house.
we see Lon with a similar tactic trying to give himself an excuse once again for his lack of logic, claiming that he is a special person and exempt from the scriptural injunction to have a ready explanation for the hope within him when he is discussing his faith with open theists (who else indeed?). Of course
for the sake of the crowds he begins by affirming the injunction 'in general'... I rest my case on that issue at least.
