Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[jwhitlock]

But this is not exactly what Daniel has stated...he has stated that while God has created beings out of nothing, that God has also imparted to them something that is described as creating them in the image of God that gives them free will as God possesses it (at least in part). Maybe it's a kind of black box thing, but whatever the gift, it allows men to operate on a free will basis without God controlling every choice they make. (Hopefully daniel will stop me if I am taking this too far for his actual beliefs, my apologies if so.)

This is not a pure calvinist position from what I see.

I agree, but I don't see his as automatically contradicting due to what I describe above. God added something to his creation out of nothing of himself. Thus he can both make a being out of nothing and also that being, being perhaps given that special something when given the breath of life (as opposed to being formed out of dust), can have free will, in that it shares something with God, being in His image.

I get the feeling that daniel has chosen to leave it at the simple statement of faith and not worry about the mechanics so what I've said above may not apply to his position....but it does demonstrate that his position isn't inherently contradictory...though he may have other assumptions that cause it to be that I haven't discussed with him yet and which I don't believe have been brought up by him in this thread or others I've read by him.

I see another possibility where God did not take of his own essence but instead used his essence/nature to model or as a template for the free will nature of man, he recreated a part of his nature in man. That would be total creation out of nothing in the sense of 'material' but not in the sense of originality so to speak.

Now this could contradict with assumptions about the gap between God and man and whether or not man is in any way a partaker of the divine nature...but as I said, I don't think we've gone that far in the discussion yet.

Then let's logically follow the implications of God imparting of his own free will to beings created out of nothing.

If those beings then have what is basically God's perfect free will, then they will make the same choices God makes and all will be saved. We are not all saved, so instead God imparted a free will that was prone to sin. In effect, we're saying that' God's free will wasn't perfect, which is a logical contradiction with the concept that God Himself is perfect.

Ultimately we're still faced - no matter how it's rationalized or explained - with the basic fact that if God creates something out of nothing, He controls the entire process and is totally responsible for the results. In that situation, there is no free will outside of what God wills (if God imparts His own free will to those created-out-of-nothing beings), and so He still is responsible for the choices made.

Personally, I think it's untenable from what we observe around us to think that God imparts His own free will to us. God's perfect free will that all of us should possess in that case certainly isn't manifest in the lives of many, many people. So was His free will perfect, or flawed enough to make us accountable for our own choices?

[jwhitlock]

I don't see it that way. I think you are attributing to him some pure calvinist beliefs that he doesn't hold.

I've concentrated specifically on his concept that God can create a free-willed being out of nothing. He's made that specific claim. That's what I'm addressing.

[Calm]

When you present the concept of predestination to a group of christians, you're most likely to get a wide variety of opinions about what it really means.

Amen.

This implies, imo, we need to be very careful when it comes to the individual not to assume s/he holds to a certain set of assumptions and beliefs, but rather allow him/her to describe his own system himself. There are times I think we can feel confident that they have not explored them sufficiently enough to understand the implications of their beliefs and assumptions themselves (and the same thing exists among LDS) depending on how they choose to converse about their own faith, but I would hesitate to insist in any case...at least out loud....that I knew better than they what their beliefs meant.

[Calm]

If those beings then have what is basically God's perfect free will, then they will make the same choices God makes and all will be saved. We are not all saved, so instead God imparted a free will that was prone to sin. In effect, we're saying that' God's free will wasn't perfect, which is a logical contradiction with the concept that God Himself is perfect.

That would depend on if God included the motivations in the gift as opposed to just the ability to choose. Part of the reason why God makes perfect choices could be because he has perfect knowledge. Giving the ability to choose to a being that doesn't have such perfect knowledge would lead to imperfect choices, would it not?

I don't know if that is an assumption that we can make...can God impart only a partial gift of himself to man so that we partake of some of his divine nature but not all? I think if one assumes that God's nature is indivisible...that his existence is in a sense dependent on each 'part' existing simultaneously with all others, that might well lead to a contradictory position as you have described.

Edited August 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Ah my head aches what contortions of logic and semantics we go through because we want to apply every superlative that man can conceive of to Heavenly Father rather than simply accept Him as the Father of our spirits.

[Calm]

Ah my head aches what contortions of logic and semantics we go through because we want to apply every superlative that man can conceive of to Heavenly Father rather than simply accept Him as the Father of our spirits.

The effort to understand what others believe about God is never wasted, imo.

[Vance]

I don't see it that way.

The fact that you are not recognizing the logical contradiction being presented by Daniel explains perfectly why you have never seen one before.

[Vance]

Ah my head aches what contortions of logic and semantics we go through because we want to apply every superlative that man can conceive of to Heavenly Father rather than simply accept Him as the Father of our spirits.

That is why I call it "omni dejure".

[jwhitlock]

Amen.

This implies, imo, we need to be very careful when it comes to the individual not to assume s/he holds to a certain set of assumptions and beliefs, but rather allow him/her to describe his own system himself. There are times I think we can feel confident that they have not explored them sufficiently enough to understand the implications of their beliefs and assumptions themselves (and the same thing exists among LDS) depending on how they choose to converse about their own faith, but I would hesitate to insist in any case...at least out loud....that I knew better than they what their beliefs meant.

Yet I can take a rather straightforward statement - as danielwoods has supplied - and work through all the implications of it. If someone wants to then address those implications specifically, then we have a discussion. But the fact that I raise such questions about implications doesn't mean I know better than them about their beliefs.

[Calm]

The fact that you are not recognizing the logical contradiction being presented by Daniel explains perfectly why you have never seen one before.

I have never said I have not seen logical contradictions in the way Evangelicals and some other orthodox Christian present their beliefs. What I said was that I have never seen them claim that God can do illogical things (meaning they make that claim, not that their actual beliefs demonstrate that their perception of God actually leads to God doing illogical things). If you have actually seen someone say something along the lines of "I believe that not only can God do whatever he wants, but that includes illogical, contradictory stuff such as creating and eating a burrito that is too hot for him to eat" I would love to see it. I am not saying there is no orthodox Christian out there that holds that position, just that anyone who has been willing to get into a conversation with me has assumed that God is a logical being even if we can't understand his logic.

[jwhitlock]

That would depend on if God included the motivations in the gift as opposed to just the ability to choose. Part of the reason why God makes perfect choices could be because he has perfect knowledge. Giving the ability to choose to a being that doesn't have such perfect knowledge would lead to imperfect choices, would it not?

I don't know if that is an assumption that we can make...can God impart only a partial gift of himself to man so that we partake of some of his divine nature but not all? I think if one assumes that God's nature is indivisible...that his existence is in a sense dependent on each 'part' existing simultaneously with all others, that might well lead to a contradictory position as you have described.

Then we get into the question of whether God can impart of something that is inherently perfect in such a way that it is implemented imperfectly enough or partially enough in order to cause the created-out-of-nothing being to make wrong choices. If so, why would God inject imperfection by design into such beings? And that still makes Him responsible for the imperfection purposely introduced and ultimately responsible for the choices made through that imperfection.

So another question is whether God has the ability to produce something imperfect or purposely inject imperfection into something and not be responsible for the results. That a perfect being with omnipotence and omniscience and omnipresence could or would do such a thing is a logical contradiction.

Absolute and total control over a process by a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent being must result in perfection. To claim that the result can be imperfect is a logically impossible, no matter how we try to explain it.

The only way God can claim not to be responsible for our choices or what we are and become is if there is some part of us that has existed independently of God in the first place.

[Calm]

Yet I can take a rather straightforward statement - as danielwoods has supplied - and work through all the implications of it. If someone wants to then address those implications specifically, then we have a discussion. But the fact that I raise such questions about implications doesn't mean I know better than them about their beliefs.

I agree. But I think we have to be careful in assuming that we understand the assumptions that someone's beliefs are based on, especially if their beliefs appear to be contradictory.

I agree that if daniel actually holds the assumptions you and Vance have apparently applied to him in your dissection of his position, that his position is illogical. Where I differ from you and Vance is that I think you are assuming he holds some assumptions he doesn't hold...I think you have filled in a perceived gap in what he said by attributing to him an assumption that is often held by calvinists and thus evangelicals (as many are calvinists, if not pure, then they hold to some calvinist beliefs). And I believe the fact that I could hold a conversation that made sense with him apparently to both of us is a good indication that my position is correct, while the fact that the two of you are not holding a conversation that makes sense to both of you (in that he disagrees with your interpretation of what he has said) would indicate that there is a probability that there is some miscommunication going on...often the result of assuming assumptions that don't exist or not assuming assumptions that do.

And I may be completely out of the water on this one...if so, it has still been fun and caused me to think some new thoughts...at least to me, which is always worth the effort in my view.

[Calm]

And that still makes Him responsible for the imperfection purposely introduced and ultimately responsible for the choices made through that imperfection.

Isn't God responsible for the fact that we don't remember the pre-existence even if we agreed to his Plan? Thus our imperfect knowledge is a result of his actions and his choices.

[Calm]

That a perfect being with omnipotence and omniscience and omnipresence could or would do such a thing is a logical contradiction.

Why? Simply because he could do something differently, doesn't imply that he must do it differently.

Why couldn't a perfect being have a perfectly good reason for creating a being that was not a mirror image of his perfection, but contained part of his image?

When we have the ability to clone ourselves (assuming that ever becomes a possibility), there will likely be those who choose to have children genetically identical to themselves. There are others who will rejoice in the difference between themselves and their children and all those around them.

Why couldn't a perfect being like the idea of diversity?

[jwhitlock]

I have never said I have not seen logical contradictions in the way Evangelicals and some other orthodox Christian present their beliefs. What I said was that I have never seen them claim that God can do illogical things (meaning they make that claim, not that their actual beliefs demonstrate that their perception of God actually leads to God doing illogical things). If you have actually seen someone say something along the lines of "I believe that not only can God do whatever he wants, but that includes illogical, contradictory stuff such as creating and eating a burrito that is too hot for him to eat" I would love to see it. I am not saying there is no orthodox Christian out there that holds that position, just that anyone who has been willing to get into a conversation with me has assumed that God is a logical being even if we can't understand his logic.

You can Google "can god do the impossible" and see what you get. Here is a link, for instance, where a non-LDS christian woman discusses a book she read of 101 Things God Cannot Do. The link is interesting because she notes in the first part that she had been taught (via taking certain Bible scriptures literally) that God can do absolutely anything. She stands corrected by what she reads in the book. But she doesn't then take the train of thought presented to her far enough in the direction of logical contradictions involving orthodox christian doctrines.

Also interesting is the fact that the things she lists from the book are things God cannot do (such as lie, or cease to have mercy, etc.) because in doing so He would cease to be God. We must then confront the concept that God must be bound by certain rules that He has to follow.

There are quite a number of people I have talked to who take the "With God nothing is impossible" scripture quite literally and apply it without exception.

[jwhitlock]

I agree. But I think we have to be careful in assuming that we understand the assumptions that someone's beliefs are based on, especially if their beliefs appear to be contradictory.

I agree that if daniel actually holds the assumptions you and Vance have apparently applied to him in your dissection of his position, that his position is illogical. Where I differ from you and Vance is that I think you are assuming he holds some assumptions he doesn't hold...I think you have filled in a perceived gap in what he said by attributing to him an assumption that is often held by calvinists and thus evangelicals (as many are calvinists, if not pure, then they hold to some calvinist beliefs). And I believe the fact that I could hold a conversation that made sense with him apparently to both of us is a good indication that my position is correct, while the fact that the two of you are not holding a conversation that makes sense to both of you (in that he disagrees with your interpretation of what he has said) would indicate that there is a probability that there is some miscommunication going on...often the result of assuming assumptions that don't exist or not assuming assumptions that do.

And I may be completely out of the water on this one...if so, it has still been fun and caused me to think some new thoughts...at least to me, which is always worth the effort in my view.

And that particular assumption would be.... ?

[Calm]

Absolute and total control over a process by a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent being must result in perfection. To claim that the result can be imperfect is a logically impossible, no matter how we try to explain it.

I think this is an assumption based on what you are assuming a perfect being is like....and if your assumptions are wrong, then this conclusion is wrong.

I don't believe you have demonstrated this, but have just stated it as a given based on what you have defined perfection to mean.

I don't believe we know what perfection is to that great of a detail that we can make those kinds of assumption.

[jwhitlock]

Isn't God responsible for the fact that we don't remember the pre-existence even if we agreed to his Plan? Thus our imperfect knowledge is a result of his actions and his choices.

Actually not. Our imperfect knowledge is a result of our choice in agreeing to come down under the restrictions laid out by Him. We made the choice.

[Calm]

There are quite a number of people I have talked to who take the "With God nothing is impossible" scripture quite literally and apply it without exception.

Good to know, I look forward to having discussions with them...perhaps when the World Table gets going.

[jwhitlock]

Why? Simply because he could do something differently, doesn't imply that he must do it differently.

Why couldn't a perfect being have a perfectly good reason for creating a being that was not a mirror image of his perfection, but contained part of his image?

When we have the ability to clone ourselves (assuming that ever becomes a possibility), there will likely be those who choose to have children genetically identical to themselves. There are others who will rejoice in the difference between themselves and their children and all those around them.

Why couldn't a perfect being like the idea of diversity?

If all parts of a being such as God are perfect, then any sub-combination of those parts must also be perfect. Does a perfect God have the ability to choose evil? To lie? To be unjust? Does any part of Him have that ability? Does any combination of any subset of parts of Him or His attributes have the ability to generate evil results?

Diversity doesn't come from rotating through different combinations of the same things. It comes from distinct individuality that is possessed alone and uniquely by a being. The we hopefully will one day become perfect like God, we will still be distinct individuals with something that is uniquely our own. Though we are His children, we are not perfect clones.

[Calm]

Actually not. Our imperfect knowledge is a result of our choice in agreeing to come down under the restrictions laid out by Him. We made the choice.

But he set up the restrictions and caused them to occur. We see this as a free act because we assume we are freely moral beings, though this is an article of faith. (since even if we are eternal beings we could be such that we are purely mechanistic and have no actual choice, only believe we have such). What if our assumptions are wrong and we had no choice?

I see this kind of argument above as being much the same as you are applying to daniel's. He believes in some fashion that God is able to create a free moral being, he doesn't understand the mechanics but accepts it on faith.

You are accepting on faith that you know enough about what a perfect being can do that you can determine logically what a perfect being can't do...at least in this instance.

I see two arguments based on different assumptions that are both internally logical and coherent, but either may be invalid if the assumptions can be demonstrated to be wrong. I don't see that being possible with either though at this time based on our imperfect knowledge of what perfection and creation means and entails.

[Calm]

If all parts of a being such as God are perfect, then any sub-combination of those parts must also be perfect.

Again this seems to be based on a definition of perfection that cannot be demonstrated, but must be accepted on faith.

What if perfection is the sum of the whole, not the individual parts of it?

A perfect circle is only perfect in its completeness. Each of its parts contributes to its perfection as a circle but are not perfect circles themselves.

Edited August 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[jwhitlock]

I think this is an assumption based on what you are assuming a perfect being is like....and if your assumptions are wrong, then this conclusion is wrong.

I don't believe you have demonstrated this, but have just stated it as a given based on what you have defined perfection to mean.

I don't believe we know what perfection is to that great of a detail that we can make those kinds of assumption.

One of the unique LDS beliefs that we have is that God is bound by certain laws that enable Him to be God. He must obey those laws.

When I've talked about that conceptually with non-LDS christians, that particular doctrine is typically rejected. God is totally and absolutely perfect within himself, and is not subject to law, but law is instead subject to Him. My sense of their belief is one of a rather high level of absolute perfection and omnipotence in God.

Of course, if anyone wants to correct me on this, they can feel free to do so. It's just been my experience that the perfection and omnipotence of God is not open to any qualification or restriction under generally accepted orthodox christian doctrine (if such a thing exists).

[Calm]

Diversity doesn't come from rotating through different combinations of the same things. It comes from distinct individuality that is possessed alone and uniquely by a being. The we hopefully will one day become perfect like God, we will still be distinct individuals with something that is uniquely our own. Though we are His children, we are not perfect clones.

I would agree, but I don't see how that impacts the concept that a perfect being could create something imperfect...at the very least in the sense of being incomplete.

Why couldn't God create a half circle? You may say it is a perfect half circle, but it is still incomplete if viewed in the context of a circle and not what it is itself. Couldn't we therefore say that God could therefore create the perfect example of an imperfect moral being?

[Calm]

One of the unique LDS beliefs that we have is that God is bound by certain laws that enable Him to be God. He must obey those laws.

When I've talked about that conceptually with non-LDS christians, that particular doctrine is typically rejected. God is totally and absolutely perfect within himself, and is not subject to law, but law is instead subject to Him. My sense of their belief is one of a rather high level of absolute perfection and omnipotence in God.

Of course, if anyone wants to correct me on this, they can feel free to do so. It's just been my experience that the perfection and omnipotence of God is not open to any qualification or restriction under generally accepted orthodox christian doctrine (if such a thing exists).

But that still does not address how that perfection is defined (the reality is that it rarely is...at least in a full sense...we may define parts of God, but never the complete whole perfection of him even if we believe that he is selfexistent perfection, I think it was in a class from Dan Peterson that God is more often defined by what he is not than what he is).

BTW, I would agree that your experience has in the case mirrored mine.

Edited August 9, 2013 by calmoriah