Why Does God Allow Evil? - Email from a Skeptic

Koinonea House Online ^ | Dr Mark Eastman

[maestro]

Why Does God 'Allow' Evil?

He doesn't!

Better,....Why does God 'Tolerate' Evil.....and to what extent?

John 19:10-11

Luke 23:34

2nd Corinthians 10

'' '' 11:3-5

1st Peter .......1:1-5

Revelation 22: 16-21

Maranatha!!

(Romans 10:17)

[The Grammarian]

In essence, Mr. Watson is saying that God's knowledge consists of both that which is possible and that which is real (actual). Because possibilities may become actual only by God's command, possibilities are what he knows of himself ("he knows his own wisdom and omnipotence, and that is knowing every thing respecting them"). But with respect to reality (actualities), God cannot proclaim that something is 'actual' before it actually is. God does not proclaim all at once, "It is," because anything that "is not" isn't at that time, but instead will be.

In other words, the succession of events that we call 'time' exists because God had it in mind that one thing should occur after another, in succession. "[F]or as there could be no knowledge of things in the Divine mind as actually existing, which did not actually exist, for that would be falsehood, not truth, so if things have been brought into actual existence in succession, the knowledge of their actual existence must have been successive also."

[connectthedots]

What is the relationship between this Eastman and the Eastman of the "Change the World School of Prayer"?

[RightWhale]

the assertion that "God is not in time"

That's another way of saying something is ideal rather than real.

[P-Marlowe]

My question is, if the incarnation is a real space-time event--an event that was the event that made Christianity anything at all--then isn't the assertion that "God is not in time" somewhat brittle and in need of a little spackling?

Here's the mystery. Jesus is God. He has always been God. He has always known everything that has happened, is happening and will happern. Jesus, as God inhabited eternity. While inhabitining eternity, Jesus existed outside of the dimension of time and thus existed in the past, present and future simultaneously.

At the incarnation Jesus left eternity and entered into the dimension of time. The Father and Holy Spirit remained in eternity. Now if you read the scriptures you find something very odd about Jesus, that you would not expect from God. Jesus didn't know everything. He didn't know the future. He knew only what the Father revealed to him. When asked when it was that he was going to return, he gave an honest answer that only the Father had that information. Thus from the perspective of "time", the date of that event had not been determined, but from the perspective of eternity, the date had been predestined by God's foreknowledge.

From the position of eternity God knows exactly what all our choices are and knows how each event will affect the future. But from the position of time, each event is subject to change and to a very large extent our choices determine our future. But from the position of eternity God knows those future choices as clear as if they had already happened.

I hope I haven't drifted too far from the subject. Suffice it to say, that it is clearly a mystery why Jesus' knowledge appeared to be limited while on earth. I believe that that while dwelling in time, it would have been impossible for Jesus to know the future unless the Father revealed it to him (because for Jesus dwelling in time the events had not yet occurred and had not been determined). But while dwelling in eternity, it would have been impossible for the Father not to know everything that was going to happen since, from his perspective, it had already taken place.

BTW xzins, are Women eligible for Knighthood in the KOETT?

[P-Marlowe]

I think Mr. Watson's premises are as speculative as mine. I do not limit God's ability to dwell in eternity. While events in time do occur in sequence and I would agree occur only in accordance with God's will, I do not believe that God inhabits time as we do. He inhabits eternity. I believe that one reason that man cannot look upon God and live is not only because he is so holy, but because looking upon God would require that we enter into eternity and that would probably cause all of the atoms in our bodies to explode at the speed of light.

Safety point guys, Don't cross the streams. Also, do not look directly at God while dwelling in a temporal body.

[xzins]

I don't know, ctd. Maybe marlowe does.

[xzins]

Of course, my friend. The question is, rather, will they have us? :>)

Who did you have in mind? A-G?

[xzins]

This is sort of neat, this new atmosphere, being able to discuss ideas/thoughts/wonderings and not be called a godless liar for every 3rd word that you pen.

[P-Marlowe]

One thing I like about Chuck Missler is that he's not afraid to delve into meanings of the scriptures that weren't considered 400 years ago. I don't think that our understanding of scripture was completed when the reformers passed from time to eternity. I would say that of all the mysteries of the scriptures, we have uncovered less than a fraction of a percent at this point.

However, whenever anyone dares to breach these subjects they seem always to be met with ridicule and shouts of heresy.

When you consider that all the endless geneologies in the Bible were inspired by God to be in the Bible, one has to wonder about the underlying significance of them. Why were they so important as to be included in scripture?

Did you ever hear Chuck Missler's discussion of the names of the geneologies of Noah and how the names point to the plan of salvation? Its fascinating.

[xzins]

That was the main thing that used to sadden me about the former discussions. The began predictably, and if anyone wanted to discuss anything not already written in someone's book of doctrine, then it was heresy.

It was so disheartening, I'm sure that's what drove winston churchill off. He wanted to discuss the ideas that led to open theology, but the typical response was "heretic."

Maybe he'll see this and read it and know he can come home now.

[P-Marlowe]

What is "Open theology"? Is it just a way of looking at scripture that conceeds that maybe everything that there is to know about scripture hasn't yet been uncovered and that we ought to keep an open mind? If so, then count me in.

Seems like every time it has been mentioned on FR it has been derided as heresy. Of course, there are those who think that if Calvin didn't think it, then its not worthy of thought.

[xzins]

The basic book that I read by Boyd involves another answer to some problematic scriptures. The "Hezekiah you're going to die" scripture is one of the primary. In it (the Xzins paraphrase), God says, "You're going to die soon." In response, Hekeziah humbles himself in prayer. God sends Isaiah back to say, "I've been moved by your prayer, so I'm adding 15 years to your life."

The problem, of course, is that this doesn't EASILY fit with:

1. A God who has everything planned. 2. A God who knows everything.

If God had planned all along that he would add 15 years to Hezekiah's life, why tell Hezekiah "you will surely die?" It would be a lie, wouldn't it, if a person had said the same, having planned the same?

Even if God had known all along that he would add 15 years to Hezekiah's life, then the same conclusion. If a person had said the same, wouldn't we call it a lie/misrepresentation, given their prior knowledge?

Open theology says that God is open to real contingency, and that therefore, he knows perfectly all knowledge that actually exists, but he knows contingent knowledge perfectly only in knowing perfectly all the contingencies (and permutations, thereof.) But this doesn't violate God's omniscience, they say, because what doesn't exist with a true contingency is the decision on the other side.

In other words, God is "open" to the new contingency.

Now, these folks are trying to deal honestly with some puzzling scripture. Many want to tell them simply to shut up.

For me, I like the timeless God answer better than the open God answer, but I had to read the book and think about it. I don't mind that others do that, too.

Another choice of course is the asbestos underwear and green wood.

Neener³

[connectthedots]

I think that prayer can lead to God changing his mind concerning men, but no prayer is going to change the fact that all of God;s prophesies will come to pass and his ultimate plan for mankind will be fulfilled.

[xzins]

God could start all over right now and STILL have the power to make all his prophecies come to pass. What seems impossible for men is possible with God.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the Watson excerpt and your subsequent explanation of it!

[The Grammarian]

It's amazing, some of the thoughts and ideas you can find in centuries-old books of systematic theology (Theological Institutes was published in the early 1820s).

[The Grammarian]

I'm actually in a private mail exchange with a guy on another forum centered around whether I am an Open Theist because I believe that God is within time.

A definition of Open Theism can be found here. I'm in X's boat, insofar as I prefer the orthodox position to the openness one, but differ in that I'm more in Watson's camp than the overwhelming modern majority that says that God is not bound by time (I think time is simply our interaction with the succession of events in the divine mind).

And I agree, X, it is rather nice not having people calling for your proverbial (or actual) head every time you posit a theory or idea that they don't agree with.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your excellent post!!! It's a bookmark for me.

One wonders what possible gratification Lewontin and Pinker manage to derive from such a world view. To postulate free will as an illusion is simultaneously to render as illusionary the substance of human experience as it has actually, historically been lived and manifested (as we know, e.g., from cultural artifacts of all ages available to historical research) since Day One. Talk about denizens of a “Second Reality!” To me, this represents a total estrangement from life in the way real people actually live it, and manifests the symptomology of radical estrangement sited in the self, which betokens isolation not only from the Spiritual community, but from the secular community and the Self also.

But how do you really feel? LOLOL!!! Yours is a superb - count by count - indictment of the Lewontin-Pinker worldview. Kudos!

I am impressed by the close correspondence between the classical and Christian traditions on the questions of the origin, governance, and sustenance of the Universe.

I greatly appreciate your thorough review of the wisdom of the Greek philosopher Plato and your renormalizing Platonism to Christian theology! It is all very engaging and wonderful to ponder.

It seems reasonable that the most influential people in the early days after the Cross would also have been the best educated and thus would be familiar with Plato’s thoughts on the subject of the origin, governance and sustenance of the universe.

Therefore, it strikes me that Plato was specially gifted by God to prepare the people throughout the Greek speaking world for later harvesting by Christianity and moreover, to spread the Gospel in the early years. And the fact that so much of the world was Greek speaking I also submit was no accident.

Daniel prophesied concerning Alexander the Great. And it is said that Alexander had a particular respect for Jewish tradition as a result of that prophecy. Further, it was Alexander the Great who normalized the various versions of Greek into a common Greek language.

These two traditions are the foundational pillars of Western culture, the “matrix” (a word etymologically deriving, yet again, from mater, “mother”) in which you and I are now living.

I submit that this was no accident either as Western culture has carried so much of the responsibility for protecting and proliferating the Christian doctrine.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for all the wonderful passages! Hugs!