WHY DOES GOD ALLOW EVIL?

God's will is the only will. Free will is an illusion.

Are you a Theologian? Can you point to scripture where it says we do not have free will? Can you point to scripture where it says that God knows & cares what I'll have for breakfast (or NOT have for breakfast, my choice) next Monday? No, you can't. But I *can* point to specific examples of where God has given us free will in the Bible.

What was it that Adam & Eve both exercized in the Garden of Eden when they ate from the Tree of Knowledge? FREE WILL. They were given the CHOICE. If God didn't give them free will to choose, he would have removed their choice.

If God had removed their choice, and NOT given them free will, then there would have been no tree of knowledge, no instruction from God not to eat from it, and we'd all be living in paradise to this day. That is your logic and non-interpretation from the Bible, which is terribly flawed.

God loved his creation mankind so much, that he gave us FREE WILL to exercize. In that FREE WILL was the CHOICE to choose God over everything else. Adam & Eve exercized the FREE WILL that God gave them, and chose wrongly.

God again showed us his love when he sent his only begotten Son to die on the cross for our Sins. In short, God gave us a way out of our Sin and eternal death, but we have to CHOOSE it. There's that FREE WILL again.

I'm sorry you don't understand it, but those are the facts. I've heard them countless numbers of times from several Pastors with Doctorate Degrees in Theology. I'll take my own reading and understanding, which happens to match theirs over your flawed interpretation of the Bible any day.

God requires witnesses, lots of witnesses. In heaven and earth.

Notice that in my #206 I used the standard theological language of man's "nature" rather than keying more directly on the idea of "person." If you prefer language which is more conspicuously protective of the monothellite position, I won't object. 208 posted on 1/2/02 9:57 AM Pacific by the_doc

Absolutely not. Reviewing your #206, I can't find anything I specifically disagree with.

Let me explain. The position of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (a council of Constantinople) regarded the Will as a function of the Nature, as against the Monothelite position that the Will is a function of the Person. I disagree with the Constantipolitan definition (in fact I have some disagreement with the Acts of the Council of Orange, council #5!! The Anglicans call themselves "the Church of the First Four Councils" -- a position with which I agree, though for a broader set of objections than the Anglicans bring); I favor the Monothelite definition.

The point is this (imho): If you adopt the Constantinopitan definition of "Will" -- a function of the Nature -- with Paul's (and Augustine's) description of human nature, then you have to regard the Will as being every bit as hopelessly corrupt, and utterly enslaved, as did Luther. (By the same token, if you reject Augustine as thoroughly as have the Eastern Orthodox, then Constantinople provides a christological "cover" for a synergistic doctrine of soteriology -- which is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox claim).

However, if you adopt the Monothelite view of "Will" -- that it is a function of the Person -- together with Paul's (and Augustine's) description of human nature, then you can say (as I do say) that the Will -- being a function of the Person -- is entirely Robust and entirely Free. Rather, it is the Person's Wants -- which are inherited as a traducian function of Nature -- which are Totally Depraved. The Person's Will is absolutely Free to do whatever the Person Wants, and all of his natural Wants are depraved... so he Wills all kinds of depravity quite Freely.

And I think that I am here in closer agreement with Calvin, than with Luther:

ethelodoulos

Thus simply to will is the part of man, to will ill the part of corrupt nature, to will well the part of grace

excerpted from Institutes bk II ch 2,3

Now, I am not here suggesting that Calvin would have regarded himself a Monothelite. In fact, I don't think he gave any particular thought to the subject. (Although I think maybe he should have - grin). But I do think you'll see that Calvin draws a similar distinction to the one I draw; his language is very similar to Luther's, but his definitions are a little more nuanced.

My own belief is that the Constantinopolitan definition (deriving largely from Maximos called "Confessor" -- who was, not coincidentally, a soteriological Arch-Synergist) confusilates the selection set (the man's Wants) with the selection mechanism (the man's Will) and lumps them together, thus necessitating an idea that "Jesus Christ had two natural wills -- human will and divine will" (and you can speculate from there how easily the Eastern Orthodox imagine an equivalency between this supposed "participation of wills" in their Christology to suppose an analogous "participation of wills" in their Soteriology. Even granting their assumptions, of course, I don't think that they have any real Scriptural basis for assuming this imagined analogous equivalency between synergistic christology and synergistic soteriology, but I do recognize the ease with which they are able to imagine analogous synergisms once Constantinople -- synergistic Christology -- is granted, and Augustine thrown out.)

By contrast, the Monothelite position argues that the selection set and the selection mechanism *are* distinct entities -- a man's Wants being a function of his Nature, a man's Will being a function of his Person. The Will is the selection mechanism, and the natural Wants are the selection set. Thus I agree with your sentiment that

...an evil nature automatically, i.e., by definition, produces an evil will.

A neo-Monothelite such as myself regards the Will as being Free; but if the selection set of natural Wants which inform the Will are Totally Depraved, then all the selections which the selection mechanism energizes into action will automatically, i.e., by definition, be evil.

But this is actually a pretty big theological issue. Certainly the Eastern Orthodox realize what is at stake -- their entire synergistic doctrine of soteriology. And, on a prima facie basis, I find the Monothelite position more logically attractive:

The "orthodox" or Duothelite position attributes two distinct natural selection mechanisms (divine will and human will) to the Person of Jesus Christ... always in perfect harmonious co-operation, of course, the human will always acting in accordance with the divine will, for the Duothelite position does not suggest any "disconnect" between the two natural wills... but nonetheless implying, it seems to me, that Jesus "thinks with an echo". His two distinct selection mechanisms (two wills) may be operating in perfect co-operation, but He is still willing twice the performance of each acton. "Not-Not My-My Wills-Wills But-But Thine-Thine Be-Be Done-Done". The Duothelite Jesus just doesn't seem "very Man of very Man" to me. (A vaguely-nestorian duothelite counter-argument might be that each Will performs those actions fitted to that Will... the divine will performing divine actions and the human will performing human actions. But this just backs the question up one step... if one will performs one action set and the other will performs the other action set, what is the over-arching selection mechanism or "Super-Will" which selects the action to be performed in the first place? Is it Monotheletic or Duotheletic?)
By contrast, the Monothelite divides the selecttion mechanism and the selection set, and ascribes the Will to the Person; thus implying that Jesus indeed possesses two distinct natures, two selection sets of Natural Wants (divine and [unfallen] human) which both inform his Will, but that He wills with a single, Personal Will, the selection of individual choices. "Not my will but thine be done".

I'll further observe, as you know that I have observed before, that IMHO Reformed Triadology is already effectively Monothelite in fact.

Consider the Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, third council of Constantinople (681).

Anathemas against the doctrine of the Personal Will:
Moreover, the Apostolic Church of Christ, the spiritual mother of your God-founded empire, confesses one Jesus Christ our Lord existing of and in two natures, and she maintains that his two natures, to wit, the divine and the human, exist in him unconfused even after their inseparable union, and she acknowledges that each of these natures of Christ is perfect in the proprieties of its nature, and she confesses that all things belonging to the proprieties of the natures are double, because the same our Lord Jesus Christ himself is both perfect God and perfect man, of two and in two natures: and after his wonderful Incarnation, his deity cannot be thought of without his humanity, nor his humanity without his deity. Consequently, therefore, according to the rule of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, she also confesses and preaches that there are in him two natural wills and two natural operations. For if anybody should mean a personal will, when in the holy Trinity there are said to be three Persons, it would be necessary that there should be asserted three personal wills, and three personal operations (which is absurd and truly profane). Since, as the truth of the Christian faith holds, the will is natural, where the one nature of the holy and inseparable Trinity is spoken of, it must be consistently understood that there is one natural will, and one natural operation.... and of these persons one is the essence, or substance or nature, that is to say one is the godhead, one the eternity, one the power, one the kingdom, one the glory, one the adoration, one the essential will and operation of the same Holy and inseparable Trinity, which hath created all things, hath made disposition of them, and still contains them.
For nothing else constitutes the integrity of human nature except the essential will, through which the strength of free-will is marked in us; and this is also the case with the substantial operation.... Preserving therefore in every way the unconfused and undivided, we set forth the whole confession in brief; believing our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, to be one of the holy Trinity even after the taking of flesh, we declare that his two natures shine forth in his one hypostasis, in which he displayed both the wonders and the sufferings through the whole course of his dispensation, not in phantasm but truly, the difference of nature being recognized in the same one hypostasis by the fact that each nature wills and works what is proper to it, in communion with the other. On this principle we glorify two natural wills and operations combining with each other for the salvation of the human race. (excerpts from the Acts of the Third Council of Constantinople, 681)

(As you can see, I've elected to bold certain sections which support my contention that Duotheletism was adopted as "orthodoxy" largely to provide a bulwark for the Synergistic soteriology of Maximos. But that point aside, compare the anathemas pronounced by Constantinople against the Monothelites -- "if anybody should mean a personal will, when in the holy Trinity there are said to be three Persons, it would be necessary that there should be asserted three personal wills, and three personal operations (which is absurd and truly profane)" -- to the declarations of Reformed Triadology:

The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order.

Nor is the doctrine of the Trinity a mere-speculation. On the contrary, to use the language of Dr Dick, "without the knowledge of this doctrine it is impossible to understand the grandest of the works of God–redemption, – in which the three persons act distinct and conspicuous parts. We are called to contemplate the love of the Father, the condescension of the Son, and the gracious operations of the Spirit. Redemption is not the work of a solitary agent, but of three, all concurring in the salvation of our perishing race. Hence we owe gratitude to each of the persons of the Godhead distinctly, and are bound to give to each the glory to which he is entitled. -- Robert Shaw, an Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith

Notwithstanding that the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same in substance, and equal in power and glory, it is no less true according to the Scriptures, (a.) That the Father is first, the Son second, and the Spirit third. (b.) The Son is of the Father (evk qeou/, the lo,goj, eivko.n, avpau,gasma, tou/ qeou/);and the Spirit is of the Father and of the Son. (c.)The Father sends the Son, and the Father and Son send the Spirit. (d.)The Father operates through the Son, and the Father and Son operate through the Spirit. The converse of these statements is never found. The Son is never said to send the Father, nor to operate through Him nor is the Spirit ever said to send the Father, or the Son, or to operate through them. The facts contained in this paragraph are summed up in the proposition: In the Holy Trinity there is a subordination of the Persons as to the mode of subsistence and operation. -- Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology

Now, I would not ask you to take sides on the matter, as I know you haven't studied it in a lot of depth. But I would just ask you (without committing yourself to a position) to offer an off-the-cuff opinion: at first glance, is there any readily apparent way to regard the Acts of Constantinople as being remotely consistent with the declarations of Reformed Triadology?

"The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order... The Father operates through the Son, and the Father and Son operate through the Spirit. The converse of these statements is never found.... In the Holy Trinity there is a subordination of the Persons as to the mode of subsistence and operation.... Hence we owe gratitude to each of the persons of the Godhead distinctly."

See what I mean?

As an aside, I'll observe that your work on Romans may or may not have some correspondence to this issue. If "All have sinned" is a collective singular (an unitary mass), then that could be taken as evidence that the Will is Natural. But if "All have sinned" is a collective plural (an aggregate mass), then that might be suggestive that the Will is Personal. Just for my own information, don't you regard Romans 3:23 as a collective plural, i.e., an aggregate rather than a unitary mass? Why or why not? Thanks.

Anyway, I really should sit down and write a paper on this sometime. I need to read a lot more Maximos then I have, but I don't like much of what I have read -- it's pretty apparent to me he was the big mover behind Duothelitism in the years before Constantinople, and his main rationale for doing so was that Monothelitism completely eviscerated the entire christological foundation for his Synergistic soteriology. That's not to say Duothelitism is untrue, as it "works" with Calvinism as easily as my own neo-Monothelitism "works" with Calvinism.

But I do know that Duothelitism has often been used as a cover for a heretical soteriological Synergism, all the way back to Maximos and ever since.

Oh, and just FYI -- the Monothelites were Iconoclasts as well, another notch in their favor in my book. The "orthodox" Duothelites, of course, were Iconophiles.

Sigh... need to jot all this down sometimes...

Best,
OP

Nice try but no cigar..I thought they were nuts, I had never heard a "teaching " on it never read a scripture on it, I heard the phrase but nothing more. there was no seed planted*grin*..I was raised an RC..work your way to salvation

I will not deny the regneration brought by the Holy Spirit. As psalms says "Salvation belongs to our God"

I was dead. I was deaf and blind The spirtually dead walking ! That was me..Then just as He breathed life into Adam,He breathed life into me....

Matthew 11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

Amazing Grace how sweet the sound that save a wretch like me.."

Sinners who recognize that they are sinners (not all people do, btw)

Have you ever wondered why? I used to. I used to stand in a room and see people with no spiritual thoughts..all they wanted to talk about was the movies,or sports ,or sex ..They had no real joy..they fill themselves with alcohol and drugs to give them peace..

I would wonder what is the matter with them...how can they ignore the God of creation?

By contrast, the Monothelite position argues that the selection set and the selection mechanism *are* distinct entities -- a man's Wants being a function of his Nature, a man's Will being a function of his Person. The Will is the selection mechanism, and the natural Wants are the selection set. Thus I agree with your sentiment that
...an evil nature automatically, i.e., by definition, produces an evil will.

A neo-Monothelite such as myself regards the Will as being Free; but if the selection set of natural Wants which inform the Will are Totally Depraved, then all the selections which the selection mechanism energizes into action will automatically, i.e., by definition, be evil.

It would seem to my very uneducated mind that they are seperate..A question ..When one is "Born again" Which is it that is changed then ? I would assume it is the nature of the being that is changed ??Is that why sin remains an issue ..as Paul pointed out..He did that which he did not want to do??

Nice try but no cigar..I thought they were nuts, I had never heard a "teaching " on it never read a scripture on it, I heard the phrase but nothing more. there was no seed planted*grin*..I was raised an RC..work your way to salvation

First, you lead us to believe you were a non-believer. Then you say God "drew you in" one day, and now you were born and raised a Roman Catholic.

And yet, you deny a seed was planted in you? Either way, I'm just glad you found Salvation through our Lord.

BTW: you cannot "work your way" to Salvation. It is a gift, freely given from God. It's there for the taking. There is no "working" for it, only accepting. The fact that the Catholic Church has taught "works" for years doesn't make it right. I know, I was born and raised Catholic myself. I stopped practicing 7 years ago, when I found the truth.

I would wonder what is the matter with them...how can they ignore the God of creation?

Assuming they've had the opportunity to learn about God, they CHOOSE to ignore Him. It's called Free Will. We all have it, we all make the choice (or not) sooner or later.

Asuming they have NOT had the opportunity to learn about God, perhaps you can help reap the harvest for God? You have a wonderful story to share.

By contrast, the Monothelite position argues that the selection set and the selection mechanism *are* distinct entities -- a man's Wants being a function of his Nature, a man's Will being a function of his Person. The Will is the selection mechanism, and the natural Wants are the selection set. Thus I agree with your sentiment that ...an evil nature automatically, i.e., by definition, produces an evil will. A neo-Monothelite such as myself regards the Will as being Free; but if the selection set of natural Wants which inform the Will are Totally Depraved, then all the selections which the selection mechanism energizes into action will automatically, i.e., by definition, be evil. ~~ It would seem to my very uneducated mind that they are seperate..

Well, yeah, that's what it seems to me, as well. It just seems more experiently correct to regard the "selection set" (my Wants) as a function of my Nature, and the "selection mechanism" (my Will) as a Function of my Person. When I elect an action, I consider the selection set of my Wants, and then I activate a selection action of Will. My "selection set" (my Wants) seem to be largely a function of inherited Nature, but the actual "selection action" (of my Will) I regard as being more particularly an expression of my unique Person.

But again, I'm not looking to advise anyone into a dogmatic position on this issue. I know that I have already devoted more study to the matter than at least 98% of American professing "christians" (that is not a boast, just an observation which I believe to be factual), and yet I know that I still have a lot more study to do. And I would caution that I am standing in opposition to the decrees of the Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council in entertaining a Monothelite view. On the one hand, as a protestant I feel a certain liberty in that regard (I have no difficulty whatsoever repudiating the Seventh Ecumenical Council's approval of the worship of Icons, for example). BUT, on the other hand, at least 174 bishops (out of a little over 300) subscribed to the Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and I am cognizant of the fact that's a large body of opinion with which to disagree!! So I don't study the matter lightly, nor should anyone else studying it. Just my advice.

A question ..When one is "Born again" Which is it that is changed then ? I would assume it is the nature of the being that is changed ??Is that why sin remains an issue ..as Paul pointed out..He did that which he did not want to do??

In my humble (and monothelitic) opinion, Yes -- that is correct. It is the nature of the Born Again believer which is changed. More particularly (as you will remember that Traducians such as the_doc and myself maintain that the Natural Soul of Man is a composite of *spirit* and *flesh*), it is the *spirit* which is regenerated. The *flesh* remains (until the Resurrection Glorification) tainted by the corruptions of the Fall. The Spirit (your communication with the Creator) has already died in Adam and is now re-born; but the Flesh (your communication with the Creation) is still corrupt, subject to the sinful passions of the Fall and its lustful habits. Your flesh, and all of Creation, must die and be reborn Glorified as well. Then we will be free.

So now the Will of your Person is torn between the two poles of your progressively-sanctified Nature... the Christful Wants of your re-born Spirit (your "new nature" in Christ) and the Sinful Wants of your corrupt Flesh (your "old man" of Sin).

Your Will (in my funky cross-breed of Monothelitism and Traducianism) is still - as it ever was - your Personal Will... the selection mechanism of your unique Person. Unfortunately, the Will of your Person is still a weakling compared to the influences of the Devil -- who is a stronger Person than you are!! That old Serpent may have seen your spirit torn from his grip, but he will still try to use your corrupt flesh to turn your Personal Will to Evil. Fortunately, however, your Person has acquired a new Partner -- the Holy Spirit himself, who comforts your Will against the demands of the flesh and strengthens your Will against the wiles of the Devil.

Thus the the Natural Soul of the regenerated Believer struggles between the Wants of his regenerate spirit, and the Wants of his corrupt flesh**; his Personal Will (selection mechanism) of decisioning between these two poles being tempted and influenced by the wiles of Satan, but protected and strengthened by the power of the Holy Spirit.

At least, that's my funky Monothelite-Traducian synthesis of Romans 7.

Now, it makes perfect sense to me...

...but, then again, I'm the only Monothelite-Traducian cross-breed I know.
So, as always, Just My Humble Opinion!! ;-)

**Postscript -- I should draw an important distinction here between my position and any form of "gnosticism". I do not regard the Flesh as evil but as fallen. One day, my flesh will be regenerated and perfected as well. I was created Flesh and Spirit, and so shall I ever be.

Dear Orthodox Presbyterian:

And so shall I ever be also.....maranatha!

Former Presbyterian

more ~~experiently~~ correct

more experientially correct

(My bad)

Former Presbyterian 271 posted on 1/2/02 8:05 PM Pacific by anniegetyourgun

Why "former"?? :-(

Best,
OP

Former PCUSA....do I need to say more? Here's a clue - "Reimagining God" conference mean anything to you?

WHY DOES GOD ALLOW EVIL?

G-d doesn't allow evil -- we do. He gave us free will; this is what some of us choose to do with that free will.

I was an unchurched Catholic.....for many years.....I was completely 'in the world'. I was not trying to be deceptive..trust me I was completely indifferent to the concept of God..moving quickly to a complete denial.

I would not lie about that ! I was not looking,seeking or wanting God in my life.

At first I tried to reconcile my "new creation" with the church of my birth.Actually for a couple of years..But I decided one day that I could not pretend to be something I am not.So like you I left.

Former PCUSA....do I need to say more? Here's a clue - "Reimagining God" conference mean anything to you? 274 posted on 1/2/02 8:15 PM Pacific by anniegetyourgun

Ah. Say no more. I totally empathize.

I'm going to take the liberty of extending you and invitation:
Come on home, sister. God has reserved to himself thousands upon thousands who have not bowed the knee to Baal.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Assuming they've had the opportunity to learn about God, they CHOOSE to ignore Him. It's called Free Will. We all have it we all make the choice (or not) sooner or later.

Asuming they have NOT had the opportunity to learn about God, perhaps you can help reap the harvest for God? You have a wonderful story to share.

Almost everyone has heard the gospel today (at least here in America). I think calling it a "free will" choice is too simplistic. We have people of all denominations that go to church on Sundays.."by choice",they may even go to Sunday School, or go on retreats..Most would call themselves "Christians" because they would assent to the divinity of Christ and the purpose of the cross.Yet they live lives untouched by the gospel.They have been told without being "born again" and Christ as their Savior they will go to hell. Yet they do not have an interest in any of the things of Christ. That goes against common sense..yet much of the church is made up of people that have no spiritual eyes..

And here I am not going to church .not seeking and not wanting to believe....and yet here I am,today, a regular Bible Thumper *grin*

What is the difference....why did I fall on my knees....why did you fall on your knees ? I believe with Augustine it was the Grace of God. What is your theory?

You may hear misguided minds say "This must have been God’s will." Nonsense! In a world of free choices, God’s will is rarely done! Doing our own will is much more common. Don’t blame God for this tragedy. Blame people who ignored what God has told us to do: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

This is the greatest paragraph - it should be printed on everything, everywhere. It also proves these people who murdered Americans were not told by GOD to kill us. GOD is love and real love never kills.

If you want to know what "real" love is, read I Cor. 13.

Post 225 -- I was just sifting through all this murky banter when I saw that. You have got to be kidding me. That picture is hilarious! Why, you ask? Because the image of Satan is Alf... you know, the TV series, Alf. Its him, seriously! Look at it and you'll see what I mean. Thanks for the laugh.