1. Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology; a book I have long desired for many many years. Now I have it, and the depths of resources I now have are abundant, indeed.
2. The Velvet Underground & Nico (Vinyl LP); The very first Velvet Underground album on a beautifully printed yellow vinyl. It is a real treasure, and one of those albums that every music lover should own on vinyl, for sure.
Thanks for my birthday presents, sweetie!
On to business: I found a wonderful quote from Berkhof which relates somewhat to the more recent discussions taking place here at Bring the Books.
It may be said that the Bible certainly does not proceed on the assumption that the divine decree is inconsistent with the free agency of man. It clearly reveals that God has decreed the free acts of man, but also that the actors are none the less free and therefore responsible for their acts, Gen. 50:19,20; Acts 2:23; 4:27,28. It was determined that the Jews should bring about the crucifixion of Jesus; yet they were perfectly free in their wicked course of action, and were held responsible for this crime. There is not a single indication in Scripture that the inspired writers are conscious of a contradiction in connection with these matters. They never make an attempt to harmonize the two. This may restrain us from assuming a contradiction here, even if we cannot reconcile both truths. (Pg. 106)
Berkhof and Velvet Underground!
ReplyDeleteWhat a caring wife!
(You got the record on yellow vinal)
I am from Chicago. I went to CBGBS (which closed last year) in 1987 and got real cbgbs tee shit from there--not from Tower Records (which also closed) here in Chicago.
I geuss the ultiamte song on the record (not CD for you) is European Son!
As Christians maybe I should like "Sunday Morning" better?
How about "Feme Fatal"!
Or All Tomorows Parties!
I had buy my own copy of Berkhof ST (no wife yet) in 1994.
A lot of Arminians, not quite knowing what they are getting buy Berkhof simply becasue of his outline form. Its a nice reference vol.
If you look in there, he begins to delve into to question of: Does God create evil souls at birth?
Isn't that perplexing? That God, who creates all things would concieve--even today, humans with evil souls. Where does He get the evil from? Or, if God doesn't create us evil--then where would we get our evil from if not from God?
The other thing about Berkhof, of course that pisses off Kim Riddlebarger--even though he recommends Berkhof is that he is supra and Kim is infra.
I talked about it with Pastor Kim on the phone. I am supra myself.
deal with it:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AMsGvYzedjA
I've always been more of a "I'm Waiting for the Man" man, myself.
ReplyDeleteeigher way she sounds like a cool wife.
ReplyDeleteLou Reed messes around with Bibilcal concepts or terms.. unfortunatly he interprets them in very worldy and sometime demonic ways.
ReplyDeleteHe does have some very good lyrics some times.-- hopefull, not so dark.
He had a tough time growing up. He dated a transvestivte guy for a while.
Last I heard he was dating Laurie Anderson if you know who she is.
"liturate rockers"
intelectulls.
There is a differnce between "free will" and "autonomy".
ReplyDeleteScripture does use the term "free will" or "willing" but it only means "in agrement" with God.
I have been struggling with the question if we dont have free will --- then how can we be infinitely accountable.
You see it isn't simply then question of "free will" in thw world system--- but "free will" with respect to eternal conscious torment.
it is one thing to discuss human will power in this life in this world--with respect to fintie events.
we can say yes I beleive in prederstination for the world.
But eternal life and eternal conscious torment--imply human immortlaity.
SO the question is---if we are immortals for eigther heaven or hell (election or reprobation) then how does God rule us?
It is not as simple as us being mortal creatures ruled by an immortal God.
We are not talking about mortal SIN.
We are talking about IMORTAL ETERAL INFINTIE SIN.
Anselm says that we sinned an infinite debt thorugh Adam.
That is we did not sin a finite debt.
So the debate over predestiantion is deeper than simply "we are finite creatures and God is infintie".
Becuase then, how is it that we would be infinitly immortally culpable not only for fintie affairs--but infintie and eternal afffairs--without infintie will power.
Answer there is a distiction between immortality and omnipotence.
Man is immortal but not omnipotent.
Hence we can burn eternally or live eternally but we don't get to decide ourselves.
We are immortals but without omnipotency.
When A Greek Philospher/Myhtoligist comes across the term "divine compatabilism" he would simply simply think in term of human "mortality" vs divine "immortlality".
ReplyDeleteSO a philospher could say that he agrees with "divine compatabilism" from the stand point of human "mortality".
But there are no "mortals" in Scripture.
Mortality is not a biblical concept.
And so in the Bible the question is more--- it is fintie potency verses infinte omnipotency.
But both the Creator and the creature are immortals.
"how is it that we would be infinitly immortally culpable not only for fintie affairs"
ReplyDeleteThis may not be precisely what you are looking for, but the reason finite decisions can still result in infinite punishments, I believe, is because of the purpose of Hell. God must vindicate Himself, or He is not just. But the reason Hell exists is because God is perfectly just. The level of punishment a person deserves is proportional to the one who has been insulted. In the case of human beings, when we sin, we do insult to an infinitely glorious and good Being. If He is to be a good judge and to love His name perfectly, then He will uphold his infinitely glorious name by making sure that the insult does not go unanswered. Hence, a finite insult to a perfect and infinite being can never be completely "filled up" as it were. Hence, an eternal Hell.
I'm sure this is not quite what you were looking for, but you certainly seem to have a lot of thoughts to share, and I'm doing what I can to follow you.
And yes, my wife is cool.
"Hence, a finite insult to a perfect and infinite being can never be completely "filled up" as it were."
ReplyDeleteYes, you have summed up Why God Became Man by Anselm!
However, while God is indeed infinite--and we have offended His infinite justice; we are also infinite--hence we are capable of enduring an inifnite hell becaue of His inifnite justice.
But we are not "finite"--we are infintie like God is. Hence, to repeat, we are capable of suffering infinitely!
But these is a topic beyond the scope of philospophy. Because, philosphers only think in terms of man being finite and God being infinite.
And so a philospher "divine compatabilism" is simply an infinite God ruling over a finite human (without violating mans free-will).
But in Scriputre (not philosophy) both man and God are infinite!
YOU see we did not commit a "finite insult to a perfect and infinite Being" We are infinite ourselves!
Man is ontologically infinite.
But we are not ontologically omnipotent.
somewhere I saw you like Dylan.
ReplyDeleteI like this link also.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wXN1A9EIf9k
see me touch me feel me:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2KP1VGS321M3V/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview
Jim, I just wrote a really lengthy response to you, and my browser screwed up and I lost everything I wrote. I basically agreed with you, but with the qualification that we don't exist infinitely by necessity. We only live forever because God wills it. Then I talked more about that, and talked about how much I liked Chicago and Bob Dylan.
ReplyDeleteI just don't feel motivated to replicate everything I wrote. Sorry. It was really good though; take my word for it.
"It may be said that the Bible certainly does not proceed on the assumption that the divine decree is inconsistent with the free agency of man. It clearly reveals that God has decreed the free acts of man, but also that the actors are none the less free and therefore responsible for their acts, Gen. 50:19,20; Acts 2:23; 4:27,28. It was determined that the Jews should bring about the crucifixion of Jesus; yet they were perfectly free in their wicked course of action, and were held responsible for this crime. There is not a single indication in Scripture that the inspired writers are conscious of a contradiction in connection with these matters. They never make an attempt to harmonize the two. This may restrain us from assuming a contradiction here, even if we cannot reconcile both truths. (Pg. 106)"
ReplyDeleteAdam, this is not an argument for a compatibalistic definition of free will... it is only an argument for free will generally. One could hold to either libertarian or compatibalist free will, and still be in line with what Berkhoff is saying here.
Actually, the compatiblist says that God's total sovereignty is compatible with human freedom. You do not agree with this. You consider them to be two exclusive propositions. Berkhof is saying that the Bible does not see any need to resolve any tension between Freedom and Divine Sovereignty. You don't believe this. Again, you see them as mutually exclusive.
ReplyDelete"Actually, the compatiblist says that God's total sovereignty is compatible with human freedom. You do not agree with this. You consider them to be two exclusive propositions. Berkhof is saying that the Bible does not see any need to resolve any tension between Freedom and Divine Sovereignty. You don't believe this. Again, you see them as mutually exclusive."
ReplyDeleteHey maybe if you tell yourself that I reject God's total sovereignty enough it will magically become true. The difference between libertarianism and compatibalism is not whether God's sovereignty is compatible with free will, it is whether free will is compatible with predestination. A libertarian can and ought to hold both that God is sovereign and that man is free. In fact, God is not sovereign apart from his own autonomy... but your philosophy removes God's very own autonomy and ultimately this elimates his sovereignty because God is not sovereign over himself. So if any philosophy is guilty of defeating God's sovereignty it is compatialism not libertarian free will.
God's sovereignty concerns God's freedom over His own creation, not his own thoughts. For God to act according to His own nature is for Him to be holy and good. I am glad that God cannot sin, for what, then, would be my standard of good or evil?
ReplyDelete"God's sovereignty concerns God's freedom over His own creation, not his own thoughts."
ReplyDeleteI understand. If you change the definition of enough you can say anything without feeling bad about it. You want to preach about the wonders of God's sovereignty, and then you want to limit God's sovereignty so that it fits in your neat little compatibalistic box. Same thing you do with free will. You are uncomfortable with the absurdity of your position, that it eliminates free will... so you redefine the word so that you can still use it. But your definition is just as meaningless. The bottom line is, you don't believe people have free will, you don't believe even God has free will, you don't believe God is sovereign. Call slavery freedom. Call imperfection perfection. Go ahead. It doesn't change the absurdity of your positions. You believe in an imperfect slave of a God. A God who is a slave to his nature, who can't even do something as simple as sin. You can call this a perfection all you want. The bottom line is your God has less power than the men he has created, and there is no way THAT is a perfection.
"I am glad that God cannot sin, for what, then, would be my standard of good or evil?"
Holiness and goodness ARE the standard. The devine command theory is false. God does not create morality. Nor does morality exists within God. THE STANDARD transcends God, and even he must freely live up to it or he cannot claim perfection.
"You are uncomfortable with the absurdity of your position, that it eliminates free will... so you redefine the word so that you can still use it. But your definition is just as meaningless."
ReplyDeleteI believe that "being able to do what one wants" is a really good and very commonly held definition of free will. You perhaps think that it serves my purposes a little too conveniently, but I can't help that. But I can tell you one thing: "the possibility of the contrary" is a definition of free will I bet most people don't even understand! Now who's really just making up definitions to suit their purposes?
"You believe in an imperfect slave of a God. A God who is a slave to his nature, who can't even do something as simple as sin."
At this point, in an ordinary discussion I would feel that I had "won." To get someone else to consider the fact that God cannot sin a negative aspect of my position, I have NO problem with that. If THAT is the downside of compatiblism, then I hope everyone is convinced of the truthfulness of compatiblism. This may be the most absurd, horrifying, shocking, troubling, (yes) heretical two sentences I ever thought I would read on this blog. It is the kind of statement which, I believe, years down the road, you will be embarassed to have written. Not only does this put you outside the traditional definition of Reformed, I'm pretty sure saying "God can sin" is just straight up blasphemy. It is like saying "up can be down" or "square can be round." It is a contradiction, and it is a terrible afront to the goodness and holiness of God.
"AS SIMPLE" as sin?!? That's about as simple as making God stop being himself, for the universe to stop existing.
"The devine command theory is false. God does not create morality. Nor does morality exists within God. THE STANDARD transcends God, and even he must freely live up to it or he cannot claim perfection."
Not only do I not believe you are referring to the Christian God of the Bible, but I am pretty sure your god is some type of panentheistic being. The last sentence that I just quoted lends me to question whether you see God as being on some sort of cosmic quest to live up to holiness. Let me ask you a question: what happens when/if God sins?
By the way, I'm not asking you to agree with divine command theory. To ask you to agree that God's nature is the standard of good is not the same thing as divine command theory. Granted, it may imply one or more features of DCT, but they are not the same thing.
"I believe that "being able to do what one wants" is a really good and very commonly held definition of free will. You perhaps think that it serves my purposes a little too conveniently, but I can't help that. But I can tell you one thing: "the possibility of the contrary" is a definition of free will I bet most people don't even understand! Now who's really just making up definitions to suit their purposes?"
ReplyDeleteAdam's argument here: Adam's definition is right because it is more popular (questionable claim) and less complicated (even more questionable claim.)
"It is like saying "up can be down" or "square can be round." It is a contradiction, and it is a terrible afront to the goodness and holiness of God."
Actually, I would say the same thing about your position. To say that God cannot sin but is ALL powerful is a logical contradiction. Sinning's easy... here watch me God I do it all the time. Now you try. Oh you CHOOSE not to... well that's ok. But if you literally CANNOT... oh wait a second, sorry... I thought I was talking to God there for a second. Wrong number.
"Let me ask you a question: what happens when/if God sins?"
We'll never know because God will never sin.
"By the way, I'm not asking you to agree with divine command theory. To ask you to agree that God's nature is the standard of good is not the same thing as divine command theory. Granted, it may imply one or more features of DCT, but they are not the same thing."
Sorry I'm using the words Divine Command Theory rather loosely. What I mean by Divine Command Theory is the idea that morality derives from God... although I understand that there is a distinction between the views that it derives from his decree (which is probably the traditional conception of DCT) or from his essential nature. (This theory might actually have another name even.)
"We'll never know because God will never sin."
ReplyDeleteOkay, I wasn't going to respond to any of your slew of new responses, since it's been almost a year since I dealt with this subject, and I almost forgot what the word "compatiblism" meant. But seriously, there was one thing, Heretic, which I had to ask you with regard to this one sentence. I asked what would happen if God ever did sin, and you responded, "We'll never know because God will never sin."
How can you justify this claim, given all that you have been arguing for?