Friday, January 11, 2008

On the non-duality of good and evil.

Some believe that good and evil are equal and opposite forces in constant struggle with eachother. Actually, good is the default, and evil is a privation, or absence of good. Read on…

From “Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective” (Geisler, Feinberg):

”(1) Good and evil are either judged by a standard beyond themselves or they are judged by each other.
“(2) But if they are judged by a standard beyond themselves, then that is the one and only ultimate by which all is judged (which is actually the theistic definition of “God”).
“(3) If good is judged by evil, then evil is the single ultimate by which all else is measured.
“(4) If evil is judged by good, then good is the single ultimate by which all else is measured.
“(5) In both cases there is one, not two, ultimate standard (contrary to dualism).

“Further, as Augustine pointed out in reply to the Manichaeans, evil is measured by good and not the reverse. For when we take all that we call evil away from something, then what is left is better (for example, remove all rust from a car and one has a better car). But when we take all that is good from something, then nothing is left. Good, therefore, is the positive and evil is the privation, or lack of good,” (330-331).


Rewrite the above argument this way:

(1) If good is judged by evil, then evil is the single ultimate by which all else is measured.
(2) If evil is judged by good, then good is the single ultimate by which all else is measured.
(3) In both cases there is one ultimate standard (contrary to dualism).

That seems to make a non-personal "good" be the ultimate standard. Good is love, agape love must be chosen, choice is made by a person -- the ultimate good/love/choosing is God. Option 2 is the reality, with 'good' being God.

This quote is taken from pages 329-330 of “Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective” (Geisler, Feinberg) --

b. the second argument for dualism

The second argument for dualism is more of an argument against non-dualism (especially theism). The dualist says that the theist cannot escape the following conclusion:
(1) God is the author of everything that exists.
(2) Evil is something that exists.
(3) Therefore, God is the author of evil.

Since theists affirm God’s sovereignty and creative power over all that exists, they cannot deny premise 1. Likewise, since theists do not, like pantheists, deny the reality of evil, they cannot deny premise 2. But this means theists seem stuck with an unwanted conclusion, since it makes God directly responsible for creating evil.

Theists respond to both premises. First, God is the author of some things only indirectly. For example, God created freedom, but He does not perform acts of evil Himself or through man’s free choice. To state it another way, God does not create evil directly or essentially but only incidentally. God is directly responsible only for the fact of freedom, not for all the acts of freedom. Of course, God did create the possibility of evil when He made men free. But it is free creatures who bring about the actuality of evil. God is indirectly responsible for evil in that He made evil possible. But the possibility of evil is actually a good—it is necessary for human freedom. The power of free choice is a good power; the fact that men abuse freedom does not make freedom bad. Men abuse everything, including the water and air in their environment. But this obviously does not mean that water and air are bad.

Many theists also object to the second premise. Evil is not a “thing” (or substance). Evil is a privation, or absence of good. Evil exists in another entity (as rust exists in a car or rot exists in a tree), but does not exist in itself. Nothing can be totally evil (in a metaphysical sense). One cannot have a totally rusted car or a totally moth-eaten garment. For if it were completely destroyed, then it would not exist at all. The Christian points to Scripture which says everything God made was “good” (Gen. 1:31); even today “every creature of God is good” (1 Tim. 4:11), and “nothing is unclean in itself” (Rom. 14:14). To be sure, the Bible teaches that men are totally depraved in a moral sense, since sin has extended to the whole man, including his mind and will (Rom. 3; Eph. 2). But total depravity is to be taken in an extensive sense (affecting the whole man), not in an intensive sense (destroying the very essence of man).

When the theist says that evil is no “thing” (substance) he is not saying evil is “nothing” (that is, unreal). Evil is a real privation. Blindness is real—it is the real privation of sight. Likewise it is real to be maimed—it is a genuine lack of limb or sense organ.

Evil is not mere absence, however. Arms and eyes are absent in stones, but we would not say that stones are deprived of arms and eyes. A privation is more than an absence; it is an absence of some form or perfection that should be there (by its very nature).


The form or perfection that should be there (by its very nature) is what God started with. Evil came later. So, good is the default, the eternal. So God did not create the devil/demons or the fallen world – He created perfect angels and perfect humans, and the means by which He would reconcile our relationship with Him. That God is beyond time does not mean what we all are going through is a delusion. Our experience of past, present, future -- of time -- is what it is. Our free will or nature apart from God's will or nature (as opposed to freely willing in line with God's will) is the origin of evil (in time). God cannot will against His own good nature. Whence comes the temporal if not from the eternal? So then, does that make the eternal... temporal? -- does it make the temporal... eternal? No; but God (eternal) transcends, and is within, the temporal -- and the two are distinct. The eternal has control over the temporal, but the temporal never has control over the eternal, unless the eternal allows it (for example, a granted prayer request). From an eternal perspective, evil is temporal and will not last forever. Only God and His goodness, and all that He sustains in existence, will last forever.

In a sentence: evil is “good messed up”. Without good, you cannot have evil. But – you can have good that is not messed up. You don’t have to have something “messed up” right next to something “not messed up” in order to appreciate the goodness of something that is “not messed up”.

Adam and Eve (or humans before sin) knew good by default, like spiders know webs and birds know nests. It was the nature of our relationship with God. Evil was unknown until unity with God was broken. It was known/felt because it was a change in what they knew of good.

The reason God told Adam and Eve, “Don’t eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” – is because we’re better off not knowing the difference. We’re better off innocent. We’re better off thinkin’ “It’s all good.” But it would not have been love if He had actually prevented us from making that choice. Imagine being God in that moment, when Eve is contemplating tasting the fruit, bringing it up to her mouth, God knowing all that results from that one little taste (everything behind us, and everything before us).

Once they broke unity with God, they were no longer innocent like children... they became self-conscious, shameful. The fact that they became ashamed "after" eating the fruit is proof that they knew good without knowing evil before the fall. It is a good thing to have discernment in this present world (one cannot avoid evil if one can not discern between good and evil), but you can probably understand how every human goes through this Garden of Eden experience when they lose the innocence of childhood and break away from their parents (who feel pain at this, but who allow it out of love, even give opportunities for it, as did God) to find their own way in the world (the parents thinking "one day they will know exactly what I was talking about, though right now my warnings seem arbitrary"). Observe the fact that innocence ("It's all good") is the default (although, for infants after Adam and Eve, they don’t start out in perfect union with God)... a blissful ignorance of evil... a knowing of only good, though one doesn't "know" one "knows" it (like birds don't "know" they "know nests" and spiders don't "know" they "know webs"). It hurts to let our little ones grow up... it hurts so much... and it hurt God, too. Love ain't all fun and games... but it's worth it.

***
On evil that is better labeled ‘suffering’ (because it does not involve a moral choice) --
“Trouble and suffering are not merely punishment for sin; for God’s people they may serve as a trial (as here) or as a discipline that culminates in spiritual gain (see 5:17; Deut 8:5; 2 Sam 7:14; Ps. 94:12; Prov 3:11-12; 1 Cor 11:32; Heb 12:5-11),” Zondervan’s NASB Study Bible note on Job 2:10.

Thursday, January 3, 2008

God wills it (right) because He is good -- essentialism.

God’s nature, which is, granted, supernatural, is supreme over His will… check it oot…

Quotes from “Intro. to Philo.” – Geisler, Feinberg

“Ethical Voluntarism – The ethical view that traces moral principles to God’s will; something is right because God wills it,” (434).

“Ethical Essentialism – The ethical view that God wills moral rules because they are right, and flow from His essence or character,” (431).

“If God exists, He is not essentially good. One atheistic argument is presented in the form of a dilemma.
(1) Either (a) morality is right because God willed it or else (b) He willed it because it is right.
(2) But if (a), then God is arbitrary about what is right, and He is not essentially good.
(3) And if (b), then God is not ultimate, since He is subject to some standard beyond Himself.
(4) But in either case—if God is not essentially good or not ultimate—God is not what theists claim Him to be.
(5) Therefore, no theistic God exists.

“The theist may answer this dilemma by taking either “horn.” Voluntarists claim that good is based on God’s will but insist that God is sovereign but not arbitrary. Essentialists contend that God’s nature is the ultimate norm in accordance with which His will cooperates. If the latter is so, then God wills what is essentially good without there being some ultimate standard beyond Himself. The ultimate norm for all good flows from the will of God but only in accordance with the nature of God. Thus God is neither arbitrary nor less than ultimate,” (323).

Good Is What God Wills

“One solution to the problem of defining good or right is to proclaim that something is right if God wills it right, and wrong if He wills it wrong. This would solve the problem of determining content in the meaning of good, as well as the difficulty involved in defining good in terms of something not ultimate. Christians claim God’s sovereign will is ultimate and the Bible spells out the content of that will to us.

“Although this does solve the problems above, it creates a few new ones. First, is something right because God wills it, or does He will it because it is right? If one takes the former (voluntaristic) alternative, then it seems to make God arbitrary. Could God actually will hate, instead of love, to be the right thing to do? Could He change His will and make cruelty right and kindness wrong? But if one takes the latter alternative, then God is acting according to a standard beyond Himself (goodness). This would contradict the Christian definition of God as the Ultimate. Many Christian ethicists (essentialists) have insisted that God can only will in accordance with His unchangingly good nature, which is not beyond Himself. Something is good because ultimately it is in accord with God’s immutably good nature,” (359).

“Justification (of What is Meant by Right) by Appeal to Divine Authority

“Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and other religions often answer the question, “How do I know this is right?” by affirming, “God said so!” This position avoids some obvious difficulties. First, it is a final appeal to the Ultimate beyond which there is no appeal. Also, it avoids the problem of defining the good in terms of something else. God is good, and that settles that. What He says is final.

“…is the authority based simply in God’s will (voluntarism)? If so, how do we know it is a ‘good’ will? Unless the authority for good is based in God’s goodness, that is, His nature (essentialism), then this authority cannot be an authority for what is good. Simply because God is powerful would not make Him an authority for good—might does not make right. It is goodness in God that makes Him an Ultimate Authority on what is good,” (377).

“Voluntarism. William of Ockham (1300?-1349) insisted that all moral principles are traceable to God’s will, and that God could have decided otherwise about what is right and what is wrong. If this is so, then whether or not one should love or hate is subject to change. Love could be right today and wrong tomorrow. Everything is relative to God’s will, which can change. Many Voluntarists take comfort in the fact that they believe God will not change His mind on essential ethical norms.

“The first difficulty with voluntarism is that it makes God arbitrary and not essentially good. Further, it exalts God’s will above His nature and allows it to operate independently of His nature. This is questionable theology at best. Also, voluntarism provides no security that God will not change essential ethical norms. Indeed, it does not even make sense to speak of God not changing ‘essential’ ethical norms, since if they are not based on God’s essence or nature, then they are not essential. Finally, an act is not good simply because a sovereign power wills it; it is good only if this power is a good power. Hence, tracing what is meant by right to God’s will alone is not sufficient; it must be traced to His good will, that is, to His will acting in accordance with His good nature,” (402).


Quotes from “Chosen But Free” – Geisler

“Appendix Twelve – Extreme Calvinism and Voluntarism

“At the root of extreme Calvinism is a radical form of voluntarism, which affirms that something is right simply because God willed it, rather than God willing it because it is right in accordance with His own unchangeable nature (a view called essentialism). If voluntarism is accurate, then there is no moral problem with irresistible grace on the unwilling, limited atonement, or even double-predestination. If, on the other hand, God’s will is not ultimately arbitrary, then extreme Calvinism collapses.

“An Evaluation of Voluntarism in Extreme Calvinism

“All extreme Calvinists are Voluntarists, either explicitly or implicitly, and no extensive passage in the Bible is used by them more than Romans 9. Since few expositions of this passage are more comprehensive than John Piper’s The Justification of God, we will cite it extensively on this matter. A selection of his quotes will set forth the view.

“ ‘Or to put it more precisely, it is the glory of God and his essential nature mainly to dispense mercy (but also wrath, Ex. 34:7) on whomever he pleases apart from any constraint originating outside his own will. This is the essence of what it means to be God. This is his name. …

“ ‘If we paraphrase and bring out the implicit understanding of righteousness, the argument runs like this: since God’s [i]righteousness consists basically in his acting unswervingly for his own glory, and since his glory consists basically in his sovereign freedom in the bestowal and withholding of mercy, there is no unrighteousness with God (Rom. 9:11ff.). On the contrary, he must pursue his ‘electing purpose’ apart from man’s ‘willing and running,’ for only in his sovereign, free bestowal of mercy on whomever he wills is God acting out of a full allegiance to his name and esteem for his glory. …

“ ‘In a nutshell it goes like this: Paul’s conception of God’s righteousness is that it consists basically in his commitment to act always for his own name’s sake, that is to preserve and display his own glory (cf. chapters 7 and 8). Therefore, since according to Exodus 33:19 [i]God’s glory or name consists basically in his sovereign freedom in the bestowal of mercy (cf. chapter 4), there is no unrighteousness with God when his decision to bless one person and not another is based solely on his own will* rather than on any human distinctive. On the contrary, he must pursue his ‘purpose of election’ in this way in order to remain righteous, for only in his sovereign, free bestowal (and withholding) of mercy on whomever he wills is God acting out of a full allegiance to his name and esteem for his glory. …

“ ‘The thesis that I formulate in chapter 5 in answer to this question is that for Paul the righteousness of God must be his unswerving commitment always to preserve the honor of his name and display his glory. If this is what it means for God to be righteous, and if his glory (or name) consists mainly in his sovereign freedom to have mercy on whom he wills, then the quotation of Exodus 33:19 as an argument for the righteousness of God in unconditional election does in fact make good sense,(1)'


“In brief, according to voluntarists like Piper, something is right simply because God wills it. And He wills whatever He pleases.

“A Critique of Voluntarism In Extreme Calvinism

“There are many serious, even fatal, flaws with voluntarism, both biblical and theological. Consider the following:

“First, neither Piper nor other extreme Calvinists offer any real biblical proof of their position. All the verses they offer are capable of interpretations contrary to voluntarism (see chapters 4 and 5).

“Second, they are inconsistent with their own position on the nature of God. On the one hand, they claim God’s mercy is based in His supreme and sovereign will—He can will anything He wants to will and show mercy on anyone to whom He wants to show mercy. On the other hand, they claim that God’s holiness and justice are unchanging. He cannot be unholy or unjust, even if He wanted to be. By His very nature God must punish sin.

“But they cannot have it both ways. For as a simple unchangeable being, all of His attributes are unchangeable. If He is just (and He is), then He must be unchangeably just at all times and to all persons in all circumstances. And if He is loving (and He is), then He must be unchangeably loving to all persons at all times in all circumstances. To be other than this would be to act contrary to His unchangeable nature, which is impossible.

“Third, virtually all strong Calvinists hold to the classical view of God’s attributes. Some of them, like John Gerstner and R.C. Sproul, give specific allegiance to Thomas Aquinas, and the rest follow Augustine, who held the same position, namely, that God is simple, necessary, and unchangeable in His essence. All God’s attributes are part of this unchangeable nature. Further, God can will nothing contrary to His immutable nature. But if this is the case, then voluntarism is wrong, since it makes God’s will supreme over everything else, even over whatever ‘nature’ He has.

“R.C. Sproul does not appear to see the inconsistency in his own view. He says on the one hand, ‘Is not God necessarily good? God can do nothing but god.’(2) Yet elsewhere he insists that “God may owe people justice, but never mercy.’(3) If this means that God is not obligated by His own nature to love sinners—all sinners—then God’s attribute of mercy is not necessary. But God is a simple and necessary Being, as even Sproul admits. Thus, while it follows that while there is nothing in fallen human beings that merit God’s love, nonetheless, there is something in God’s unchangeable love that necessitates that He loves them.

“Fourth, there are serious theological problems with voluntarism. Essential to voluntarism is the premise that God has nothing either outside Him or inside Him that places any limits on His will. Whatever He will is ipso facto right. If this were so, then God could will that love is wrong and hate is right, or that injustice is right and justice is wrong. But this is absurd and contradictory, for something cannot even be in-just (not just) unless there is an ultimate standard of justice (such as the nature of God) by which we know what is not just.

“Finally, the voluntarism of extreme Calvinism is a classic example of the fallacy known as theologism. It takes a single theological principle and uses it as the ultimate determiner of all truth. Often the principle is: Whatever gives most glory to God is true. And since they believe that making God’s will supreme over everything else brings more glory to Him, then it would follow that voluntarism is true.

“However, one can challenge both premises. Not that it is wrong to do everything for the glory of God, but that ‘glory’ is an ambiguous term that needs definition. When properly defined it refers to the manifestation and radiation of God’s eternal and unchangeable essence, not His arbitrary will. Further, the second premise is likewise flawed, for making God’s will supreme, even over His nature, does not bring the most glory to God. In fact, it contradicts His unchangeable nature. And nothing that contradicts God’s nature can be glorifying to Him.

“A Defense of Christian Essentialism

“Either voluntarism is true, or else some form of essentialism is true. The former claims something is right because God willed it. The latter contends that God wills it because it is right. Saints Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas defended this latter view, as did C.S. Lewis in modern times.

“There are two basic forms of essentialism: either God is bound to will things in accordance to some standard outside Himself (as in Plato’s Good) or else by the standard inside Himself (namely, His own nature). The latter is held by Christian essentialists. Three basic lines of argument in favor of this view are:(4) philosophical, biblical, and practical. First, the philosophical view will be discussed.

“Philosophical Arguments for Divine Essentialism

“Christian theist Thomas Aquinas offered three basic arguments for God’s unchangeable nature in his famous Summa Theologica (ST1.2.3.).

“The argument from God’s pure actuality
“The first argument is based on the fact that a God of pure Actuality (‘I AM-ness’) has no potentiality. For everything that changes has potentiality, and there can be no potentiality in God (He is pure Actuality, Ex. 3:14). Whatever changes has to have the potential to change. But as pure Actuality God has no potential; therefore, He cannot change.

“The argument from God’s perfection
“The second argument for God’s unchangeability stands on His absolute perfection. Briefly put, whatever changes acquires something new. But God cannot acquire anything new, since He is absolutely perfect; He could not be better. Therefore, God cannot change. God is by His very nature an absolutely perfect Being. If there were any perfection that He lacked, then He would not be God. To change one must gain something new, but to gain a new perfection is to have lacked it to begin with. If God could change, He would not be God; rather, He would be a being lacking in some perfection, not the absolutely perfect God He is. Hence, He cannot change.

“The argument from God’s simplicity
The third argument for God’s immutability follows from His simplicity. Everything that changes is composed of what changes and what does not change. But there can be no composition in God (He is an absolutely simple being). Again, then—God cannot change.

“An absolutely simple being has no composition. But whatever changes must be composed of what does change and what does not change. For if everything about a being changed, then it would not be the same being but an entirely new being. In fact, it would not be change but annihilation of the one and recreation of another entirely new. Now, if when change occurs in a being something remains the same and something does not, then the being must be composed of these two elements. But an absolutely simple being, such as God is, has no composition. Therefore, it follows that God cannot change.

“Biblical Arguments for Divine Essentialism

“There are numerous Scriptures that declare that God is unchangeable in His nature. First, the Old Testament passages will be discussed.

“Old Testament evidence for God’s immutability
“The psalmist declared: ‘In the beginning you [Lord] laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end’ (Ps. 102:25-27). 1 Samuel 15:29 affirms that ‘He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind.’ The prophet added, ‘For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed’ (Mal. 3:6 KJV).

“New Testament evidence for God’s immutability
“The New Testament is equally strong about God’s unchangeable nature. Hebrews 1:10-12 cites the psalmist with approval, repeating, ‘You [Lord] will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end’ (v. 12). A few chapters later the author of Hebrews asserts, ‘God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie…’ (Heb. 6:18). The apostle Paul adds in Titus 1:2, “God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time…’ James 1:17 points out that ‘Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning’ (KJV).

“Now, if God is unchangeable in His nature, then His will is subject to His unchangeable nature. Thus, whatever God wills must be good in accordance with His nature. In fact, since God is simple His will is identical to His unchangeable nature. He cannot lie. He cannot be unloving, nor unjust. In short, divine essentialism must be correct in contrast to extreme Calvinism.

“Practical Arguments for God’s Moral Immutability

“In addition to the philosophical and biblical arguments for God’s nature being unchangeable, there are many practical arguments.

“The argument from moral repugnance
“Divine essentialists insist that it is morally repugnant to assume, as voluntarists do, that God could change His will on whether love is essentially good and could will instead that hate be a universal moral obligation. Likewise, it is difficult to conceive how a morally perfect Being could will that rape, cruelty, and genocide be morally good. Since it is morally repugnant for creatures made in God’s image to imagine such a change in God’s will, how much more must it be for the God in whose image we are made?

“The argument from the need for moral stability[b]
“According to this argument, if all moral principles were based on God’s changing will, then there would be no moral security. For example, how could one commit himself/herself to a life of love, mercy, or justice only to find out that God could change at any moment the fact of whether these were the right things to do? Indeed, how could we serve God as supreme if He could will that our ultimate good was not to love Him but hate Him?

“The argument from God’s trustworthiness
“The Bible presents God as eminently trustworthy. When He makes an unconditional promise He never fails to keep it (cf. Gen. 12:1-3; Heb. 6:16-18). Indeed, the gifts and callings of God are without change of mind on His part (Rom. 11:29). God is not a man that He should repent (1 Sam. 15:29 KJV). He can always be counted on to keep His Word (Isa. 55:11). But this ultimate trustworthiness of God would not be possible if He could change His will at any time about anything. The only thing that makes God morally bound to keep His Word is His unchangeable nature. Otherwise, He could decide at any moment to send all believers to hell. He could reward the wicked for murder and cruelty. Such a God would not be eminently trustworthy, as is the God of the Bible, who is unchangeable good.

“What is ironic here is that the very Calvinists who depend on an essentially unchanging God to support their beliefs in unconditional election and eternal security, depend on an a non-essentialistic (i.e., voluntaristic) view of God to ground their view in limited atonement. Thus, extreme Calvinism has at its heart an incoherent view of God.

“Conclusion
“Extreme Calvinism stands or falls with voluntarism. It is at the root of both its biblical interpretation and theological expressions. But, as we have seen, Calvinistic voluntarism is biblically unfounded, theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant. Thus, extreme Calvinism is subject to the same criticisms.


Extreme Calvinism is also discussed in my thread "Predestination and Free Will"

Against Gnosticism

Some warm-up reading: Isaiah 6:9-10, Ezekiel 12:2, Luke 10:21, 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16… Isaiah 35:4-5.

This (longish) study is split up into different parts in this thread:
Part 1 – intro., excerpts from extra-biblical sources.
Part 2 – excerpts from introductions of relevant books of Bible.
Part 3 – relevant passages from the Bible, and excerpts from study notes.

Part 1 --

The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, Encyclopedic Edition, Volume 1, published by Lexicon Publications, Inc., in 1995, defines Gnosticism on page 408 as “a trend of religious thought with Far Eastern origins which flourished in the Hellenistic Near East. There were numerous Gnostic sects, both pagan and Christian. The Christian Gnostics denied the literal meaning of Scriptures and saw only an esoteric meaning [defined as ‘(of religious, mystical or philosophical teaching or practice) with a meaning that is understood only by those who have received the necessary instruction or training,’ (ibid, p. 322)] based on gnosis [defined as ‘a divinely inspired knowledge,’ (ibid, p. 408)], e.g. they did not believe that a real Jesus was really crucified.”

In the Universal Subject Guide to the Bible, found near the back of The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, published by Thomas Nelson in 1990, Gnosticism is defined as an “early heresy based on knowledge instead of faith.” On that note, please see my faith thread. The faith thread discusses whether we are saved by faith or works (also touching on the issue of blind faith), and this present Gnosticism thread could be thought of as an off-shoot from the faith thread, branching into a discussion of whether we are saved by faith or knowledge (of the “gnosis” variety). According to the aforementioned subject guide, Gnosticism is “warned against (Col 2:8, 18), arrogant (1 Cor 8:1), false (1 Tim 6:20) and surpassed by Christ (Eph 3:19).”

From the “Answering Mysticism” section, page 650 of “The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell:
Robert S. Ellwood, Jr. warns:

“We must receive with considerable caution the common ideas that if religion became more mystical and less dogmatic it would be better, and that mysticism is the true spiritual core of all religion. While a valid case can be argued for some of the assumptions underlying these propositions, they are highly ambiguous unless we take setting into account. Depending upon setting, what people regard as mystical experience can as well release the demons of war and hate in the name of a spiritual cause. For the self-validating nature of mysticism is a two-edged sword: it might enable the wondrous experience of transcendence, yet validate the separation of its associations from the control of reason. Therein comes the dark side of mysticism. Those who release self-validating experiences from the supervision of reason and social control neglect these controls to the peril of all. The danger may, strictly speaking, lie not in the flash of ecstasy but in the feelings and symbols associated with it. In practice, however, often little separation of the two occurs. The self-validating experience easily becomes the false romanticism of exalting feelings as cognitive and guides to action over reason or tradition. One then is likely to evoke the mood of the Nazi madness or of solipsist fanaticism of Charles Manson.” (Ellwood, Mysticism and Religion, 186)


I insert that quote because the exclusive nature of Gnosticism and its “secret knowledge” seems to warrant it here.

Part 2 --

All “introduction” quotes below are from the Zondervan NASB Study Bible.

The section titled The Colossian Heresy in the introduction to Colossians:
Paul never explicitly describes the false teaching he opposes in the Colossian letter. The nature of the heresy must be inferred from statements he made in opposition to the false teachers. An analysis of his refutation suggests that the heresy was diverse in nature. Some of the elements of its teaching were:
1. Ceremonialism. It held to strict rules about the kinds of permissible food and rink, religious festivals (2:16-17) and circumcision (2:11; 3:11).
2. Asceticism. “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (2:21; cf. 2:23).
3. Angel worship. See 2:18.
4. Depreciation of Christ. This is implied in Paul’s stress on the supremacy of Christ (1:15-20; 2:2-3, 9).
5. Secret knowledge. The Gnostics boasted of this (see 2:18 and Paul’s emphasis in 2:2-3 on Christ, “in whom are hidden all treasures of wisdom”).
6. Reliance on human wisdom and tradition. See 2:4,8.

These elements seem to fall into two categories, Jewish and Gnostic. It is likely, therefore, that the Colossian heresy was a mixture of an extreme form of Judaism and an early stage of Gnosticism (see Introduction to 1 John: Gnosticism; see also note on 2:23).


From the Background and Purpose section of 1 Timothy’s introduction:
A major problem in the Ephesian church was a heresy that combined Gnosticism (see Introduction to 1 John: Gnosticism), decadent Judaism (1:3-7) and false asceticism (4:1-5).

From the Date section of 2 Peter’s introduction:
The error combated is comparable to the kind of heresy present in the first century. To insist that the second chapter was directed against second-century Gnosticism is to assume more than the contents of the chapter warrant. While the heretics referred to in 2 Peter may well have been among the forerunners of second-century Gnostics, nothing is said of them that would not fit into the later years of Peter’s life.

The section devoted to Gnosticism in 1 John’s introduction:

Gnosticism
One of the most dangerous heresies of the first two centuries of the church was Gnosticism. Its central teaching was that spirit is entirely good and matter is entirely evil. From this unbiblical dualism flowed five important errors:
1. Man’s body, which is matter, is therefore evil. It is to be contrasted with God, who is wholly spirit and therefore good.
2. Salvation is the escape from the body, achieved not by faith in Christ but by special knowledge (the Greek word for “knowledge” is gnosis, hence Gnosticism).
3. Christ’s true humanity was denied in two ways: (1) Some said that Christ only seemed to have a body, a view called Docetism, from the Greek word dokeo (“to seem”), and (2) others said that the divine Christ joined the man Jesus at baptism and left him before he died, a view called Cerinthianism, after its most prominent spokesman, Cerinthus. This view is the background of much of 1 John (see 1:1, 2:22; 4:2-3).
4. Since the body was considered evil, it was to be treated harshly. This ascetic form of Gnosticism is the background of part of the letter to the Colossians (2:21-23).
5. Paradoxically, this dualism also led to licentiousness. The reasoning was that, since matter—and not the breaking of God’s law (1 John 3:4)—was considered evil, breaking his law was of no moral consequence.

The Gnosticism addressed in the NT was an early form of the heresy, not the intricately developed system of the second and third centuries. In addition to that seen in Colossians and in John’s letters, acquaintance with early Gnosticism is reflected in 1,2 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Peter and perhaps 1 Corinthians.


From the Occasion and Purpose section in 2 John’s introduction:

During the first two centuries the gospel was taken from place to place by traveling evangelists and teachers. Believers customarily took these missionaries into their homes and gave them provisions for their journey when they left. Since Gnostic teachers also relied on this practice (see not on 3 John 5), 2 John was written to urge discernment in supporting traveling teachers; otherwise, someone might unintentionally contribute to the propagation of heresy rather than truth.



From the Occasion and Purpose section in 3 John’s introduction:
See Introduction to 2 John: Occasion and Purpose. Itinerant teachers sent out by John were rejected in one of the churches in the province of Asia by a dictatorial leader, Diotrephes, who even excommunicated members who showed hospitality to John’s messengers. John wrote this letter to commend Gaius for supporting the teachers and, indirectly, to warn Diotrephes.


From the Date, Recipients and Occasion and Purpose sections in Jude’s introduction:
Date
There is nothing in the letter that requires a date beyond the lifetime of Jude the brother of the Lord. The error the author is combating, like that in 2 Peter, is not the heretical teaching of the second century, but that which could and did develop at an early date (cf. Acts 20:29-30; Rom 6:1; 1 Cor 5:1-11; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:13; Eph 5:3-17; 1 Thess 4:6).

Recipients
The description of those to whom Jude addressed his letter is very general (v. 1). It could apply to Jewish Christians, Gentile Christians, or both. Their location is not indicated. It should not be assumed that, since 2 Pet 2 and Jude 4-18 appear to describe similar situations, they were both written to the same people. The kind of heresy depicted in these two passages was widespread (see Date).

Occasion and Purpose
Although Jude was very eager to write to his readers about salvation, he felt that he must instead warn them about certain immoral men circulating among them who were perverting the grace of God (v. 4). Apparently these false teachers were trying to convince believers that being saved by grace gave them license to sin since their sins would no longer be held against them. Jude thought it imperative that his readers be on guard against such men and be prepared to oppose their perverted teaching with the truth about God’s saving grace.

It has generally been assumed that these false teachers were Gnostics. Although this identification is no doubt correct, they must have been forerunners of fully developed, second-century Gnosticism (see Introduction to 2 Peter: Date).


Part 3 --

Now to explore a bold sampling of these indexed verses compiled from the above-mentioned subject guide (see original post), and from the Index to Notes found near the back of Zondervan’s NASB Study Bible (1999), as well as from verses mentioned in the introductions quoted above (from the same bible) (see second post of this thread): Acts 20:29-30; Rom 6:1; 1 Cor 4:2-7; 5:1-11; 8:1-3; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:13; Eph 3:19; 5:3-17; Col 1:19, 28; 2 (entire chapter); 1 Thess 4:3-8; 1 Tim 1:3-11; 4:1-5; 6:20; 2 Tim 2:14-18; 2 Pet 2:12; 1 John 1:1, 10; 2:3, 18, 21-23, 27; 3:4; 4:1-3; 5:6, 16; 2 John 1:7-11; 3 John 1:5; Jude 1:4-19; Rev 2:24.

Note that every time you read the word “mystery” or “mysteries” in any of the above (and below) verses, you can probably find it covered in my “Mystery in the Bible” thread – linked to at the beginning of this thread.

All bible verses and study notes are quoted from Zondervan’s NASB (New American Standard Bible) Study Bible (1999):

1 Corinthians 8:1-3: “1 … we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. 2 If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; 3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.”

NASB note v. 1: Knowledge makes arrogant. It fills one with false pride. love edifies. Explained in vv.7-13. The Christian should love his brother who doubts.
NASB note v. 2: has not yet known. The wisest and most knowledgeable Christian realizes that his knowledge is limited. God is the only one who knows all (cf. Rom 11:33-36).

Ephesians 3:19: “…to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.”

Nothing directly addressing Gnosticism yet… those were just warm-up passages…

Colossians 1:19, 28: “19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him. 28 We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ.”

NASB note v. 19: fullness. Part of the technical vocabulary of some Gnostic philosophies. In these systems it meant the sum of the supernatural forces controlling the fate of people. For Paul “fullness” meant the totality of God with all His powers and attributes (2:9).
NASB note v. 28: complete. Employed by the mystery religions and the Gnostics to describe those who had become possessors of the secrets or knowledge boasted of by the particular religion (see Introduction to 1 John: Gnosticism). But in Christ every believer is one of the perfect.

From the Colossians section, page 725 of Zondervan’s Handbook to the Bible, 1999 (Pat and David Alexander, authors):
“1:24-2:5 Paul’s own task
The apostle’s job is to make God’s message known. The philosophers hint at secrets, at deep things known only to the initiated. This is God’s open secret: ‘Christ—in you!’ A share in God’s own glory for every Christian ! This is a ‘secret’ worth knowing. It makes all Paul’s struggle and effort ‘to preach Christ to everyone’ worthwhile.”

Colossians 2:1-23 (read it).

NASB note v. 3: knowledge[/b]. Paul stressed knowledge in this letter (v. 2; 1:9-10) because he was refuting a heresy that emphasized knowledge as the means of salvation (see Introduction to 1 John: Gnosticism). Paul insisted that the Christian, not the Gnostic, possessed genuine knowledge.
NASB note v. 8: [i]elementary principles of the world. This term (which occurs also in v. 20 and Gal 4:3,9) means false, worldly, religious, elementary teachings. Paul was counteracting the Colossian heresy, which, in part, taught that for salvation one needed to combine faith in Christ with secret knowledge and with man-made regulations concerning such physical and external practices as circumcision, eating and drinking, and observance of religious festivals.
NASB note v. 9: fullness of Deity. See note on 1:19. The declaration that the very essence of deity was present in totality in Jesus’ human body was a direct refutation of Gnostic teaching.
NASB note vv. 10-15: Here Paul declares that the Christian is complete in Christ, rather than being deficient as the Gnostics claimed. This completeness includes the putting off of the sinful nature (v.11), resurrection from spiritual death (vv.12-13), forgiveness (v.13) and deliverance from legalistic requirements (v. 14) and from evil spirit beings (v. 15).
NASB note v. 15: When He had disarmed. Not only did God cancel out the accusations of the law against the Christian, but He also conquered and disarmed the evil agents (powers and authorities, 1:16; Eph 6:12), who entice people to follow asceticism and false teachings about Christ. The picture is of conquered soldiers stripped of their clothes as well as their weapons to symbolize their total defeat.
NASB note v. 17: shadow…substance. The ceremonial laws of the OT are here referred to as shadows (cf. Heb 8:5; 10:1) because they symbolically depicted the coming of Christ; so any insistence on the observance of such ceremonies is a failure to recognize that their fulfillment has already taken place. This element of the Colossian heresy was combined with a rigid asceticism, as vv. 20-21 reveal.
NASB note v. 18: defrauding. This term pictures an umpire or referee who excludes from competition any athlete who fails to follow the rules. The Colossians were not to permit any false teacher to deny the reality of their salvation because they were not delighting in mock humility and in the worship of angelic beings. self-abasement. Humility in which one delights is of necessity mock humility. Paul may refer to a professed humility in view of the absolute God, who was believed to be so far above man that He could only be worshiped in the form of angels He had created. Second-century Gnosticism conceived of a list of spirit beings who had emanated from God and through whom God may be approached. he has seen. Probably refers to professed visions by the false teachers.
NASB note v. 19: not holding fast to the head. The central error of the Colossian heresy is a defective view of Christ, in which He is believed to be less than deity (see v. 9; 1:19).
NASB note v. 20: elementary principles. See note on v. 8.
NASB note v. 21: Do not handle…taste…touch! The strict ascetic nature of the heresy is seen here. These prohibitions seem to carry OT ceremonial laws to the extreme.
NASB note v. 23: A rather detailed analysis of the Colossian heresy: 1. It appeared to set forth an impressive system of religious philosophy. 2. It was, however, a system created by the false teachers themselves (“self-made”), rather than being of divine origin. 3. The false teachers attempted to parade their humility. 4. This may have been done by a harsh asceticism that brutally misused the body. Paul’s analysis is that such practices are worthless because they totally fail to control sinful desires. self-made religion. The false teachers themselves had created the regulations of their heretical system. They were not from God.

1 Timothy 1:3-11; 4:1-5; 6:20 (read it).

NASB note 1:3-11: In this section, along with 4:1-8; 6:3-5, 20-21, Paul warns against heretical teachers in the Ephesian church. They are characterized by (1) teaching false doctrines (1:3; 6:3); (2) teaching Jewish myths (Titus 1:14); (3) wanting to be teachers of the OT law (1:7); (4) building up endless, far-fetched, fictitious stories based on obscure genealogical points (1:4; 4:7; Titus 3:9); (5) being conceited (1:7; 6:4); (6) being argumentative (1:4; 6:4; 2 Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9); (7) using talk that was meaningless (1:6) and foolish (2 Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9); (8) not knowing what they were talking about (1:7; 6:4); (9) teaching ascetic practices (4:3); and (10) using their positions of religious leadership for personal financial gain (6:5). These heretics probably were the forerunners of the Gnostics (6:20-21); see Introduction to 1 John: Gnosticism).
NASB note 1:4 myths and endless genealogies. Probably mythical stories built on OT history (genealogies) that later developed into intricate Gnostic philosophical systems (see Introduction to 1 John: Gnosticism).
NASB note 4:1 in later times. The time beginning with the first coming of Christ (see note on Heb 1:1). That Paul is not referring only to the time immediately prior to Christ’s second coming is obvious from his assumption in v. 7 that the false teachings were already present at the time of his writing.
NASB note on 4:3 This unbiblical asceticism arose out of the mistaken belief that the material world was evil—a central belief of the Gnostic heresy (see Introduction to 1 John: Gnosticism).
NASB note on 6:20 what is falsely called “knowledge.” A reference to an early form of the heresy of Gnosticism, which taught that one may be saved by knowledge. (The term “Gnosticism” comes from the Greek word for knowledge; see Introduction to 1 John: Gnosticism.)

2 Timothy 2:14-18 “14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. 16 But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, 17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some.”

NASB note vv. 14-18: The wording of vv. 14-16 indicates that the heresy mentioned here is an early form of Gnosticism—the same as that dealt with in 1 Timothy and Titus (see note on 1 Tim 1:3-11 and Introduction to 1 John: Gnosticism). Two leaders of this heresy, Hymenaeus (see 1 Tim 1:20) and Philetus, denied the bodily resurrection and probably asserted that there is only a spiritual resurrection (similar to the error mentioned in 1 Cor 15:12-19). Gnosticism interpreted the resurrection allegorically, not literally.

2 Peter 2:12 “But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed,”

NASB note v. 12: like unreasoning animals. A scathing denunciation. They are like irrational animals, whose lives are guided by mere instinct and who are born merely to be slaughtered. Destruction is their final lot. where they have no knowledge. The heresy to which Peter refers may have been an early form of second-century Gnosticism (see Introduction to 1 John: Gnosticism) that claimed to possess special, esoteric knowledge. If so, it is ironic that those who professed special knowledge acted out of abysmal ignorance, and the result was arrogant blasphemy. Ichthus: read whole chapter.

1 John 1:1, 10; 2:3, 18, 21-23, 27; 4:1-3; 5:6, 16: “1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life--, 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 27 As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. 5:6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.”

NASB note 1:1 heard…seen…looked at…touched. The apostle had made a careful examination of the Word of Life. He testifies that the one who has existed from eternity “became flesh” (John 1:14)—i.e., a flesh-and-blood man. He was true God and true man. At the outset, John contradicts the heresy of the Gnostics (see Introduction: Gnosticism).
NASB note 1:10 we have not sinned. Gnostics denied that their immoral actions were sinful.
NASB note 2:3 Forty-two times 1 John uses two Greek verbs normally translated “know.” One of these verbs is related to the name of the Gnostics, the heretical sect that claimed to have a special knowledge (Greek gnosis of God (see Introduction: Gnosticism).
NASB note 2:18 antichrist…many antichrists. John assumed his readers knew that a great enemy of God and His people will arise before Christ’s return. That person is called “antichrist” (v. 18), “the man of lawlessness” (2 Thess 2:3; but see note there) and “the beast” (Rev 13:1-10). But prior to him, there will be many antichrists. These are characterized by the following: (1) They deny the incarnation (4:2; 2 John 1:7) and that Jesus is the divine Christ (v.22); (2) they deny the Father (v.22); (3) they do not have the Father (v.23); (4) they are liars (v.22) and deceivers (2 John 1:7); (5) they are many (v.18); (6) in John’s day they left the church because they had nothing in common with believers (v.19). The antichrists referred to in John’s letter were the early Gnostics. The “anti” in antichrist means “against” (cf. 2 Thess 2:4; Rev 13:6-7).
NASB note 2:22 Jesus is the Christ. The man Jesus is the divine Christ (see the parallel confession in 5:5; see also Introduction: Gnosticism and not on 5:6).
NASB note 2:23 See 2 John 1:9 for the same thought.
NASB note 2:26 One of the statements of purpose for the letter (see Introduction: Occasion and Purpose).
NASB note 2:27 have no need for anyone to teach you. Since the Bible constantly advocates teaching (Matt 28:20; 1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11; Col 3:16; 1 Tim 4:11; 2 Tim 2:2,24), John is not ruling out human teachers. At the time when he wrote, however, Gnostic teachers were insisting that the teaching of the apostles was to be supplemented with the “higher knowledge” that they (the Gnostics) claimed to possess. John’s response was that what the readers were taught under the Spirit’s ministry through the apostles not only was adequate but was the only reliable truth. teaches you. The teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit (what is commonly called illumination) does not involve revelation of new truth or the explanation of all difficult passages of Scripture to our satisfaction. Rather, it is the development of the capacity to appreciate and appropriate God’s truth already revealed—making the Bible meaningful in thought and daily living. all things. All things necessary to know for salvation and Christian living.
NASB note 4:1 spirit. A person moved by a spirit, whether by the Holy Spirit or an evil one. test the spirits. Cf. 1 Thess 5:21. (Matt 7:1 does not refer to such testing or judgment; it speaks of self-righteous moral judgment of others.) false prophets. A true prophet speaks from God, being “moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:21). False prophets, such as the Gnostics of John’s day, speak under the influence of spirits alienated from God. Christ warned against false prophets (Matt 7:15; 24:11), as did Paul (1 Tim 4:1) and Peter (2 Pet 2:1).
NASB note 4:2 confesses. Not only knows intellectually—for demons know, and shudder (James 2:19; cf. Mark 1:24)—but also confesses publicly. Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. See note on 1:1. Thus John excludes the Gnostics, especially the Cerinthians, who taught that the divine Christ came upon the human Jesus at his baptism and then left him at the cross, so that it was only the man Jesus who died (see Introduction: Gnosticism).
NASB note 5:6 Water symbolizes Jesus’ baptism, and blood symbolizes His death. These are mentioned because Jesus’ ministry began at His baptism and ended at His death. John is reacting to the heretics of his day (see Introduction: Gnosticism) who said that Jesus was born only a man and remained so until His baptism. At that time, they maintained, the Christ (the Son of God) descended on the human Jesus, but left him before his suffering on the cross—so that it was only the man Jesus who died. Throughout this letter John has been insisting that Jesus Christ is God as well as man (1:1-4; 4:2; 5:5). He now asserts that it was this God-man, Jesus Christ who came into our world, was baptized and died. Jesus was the Son of God not only at His baptism but also at His death (v.6b). This truth is extremely important, because, if Jesus died only as a man, His sacrificial atonement (2:2; 4:10) would not have been sufficient to take away the guilt of man’s sin.
NASB note 5:16 Verses 16-17 illustrate the kind of petition we can be sure God will answer (see vv.14-15). sin leading to death. In the context of this letter directed against Gnostic teaching, which denied the incarnation and threw off all moral restraints, it is probably that the “sin leading to death” refers to the Gnostics’ adamant and persistent denial of the truth and to their shameless immorality. This kind of unrepentant sin leads to spiritual death. Another view is that this is sin that results in physical death. It is held that, because a believer continues in sin, God in judgment takes his life (cf. 1 Cor 11:30). In either case, “sin not leading to death” is of a less serious nature.

2 John 1:7-11: “7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. 9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.”

NASB note vv.7-11: This section deals with the basic Gnostic heresy attacked in 1 John, namely, that the Son of God did not become flesh (John 1:14), but that He temporarily came upon the man Jesus between his baptism and his crucifixion (see Introduction to 1 John: Gnosticism).
NASB note v.7: Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. See 1 John 4:2-3 and note. antichrist. See note on 1 John 2:18.
NASB note v.9: goes too far. A reference to the Gnostics, who believed that they had advanced beyond the teaching of the apostles. teaching of Christ. The similarity of this letter to 1 John, the nature of the heresy combated, and the immediate context suggest that John is not referring to teaching given by Christ, but to the true teaching about Christ as the incarnate God-man.
NASB note v.10: receive him into your house. A reference to the housing and feeding of traveling teachers (see Introduction: Occasion and Purpose). The instruction does not prohibit greeting or even inviting a person into one’s home for conversation. John was warning against providing food and shelter, since this would be an investment in the “evil deeds” of false teachers and would give public approval (see v.11).

Jude v.19 “These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit.”

NASB note v. 19: the ones who cause divisions. At the very least this phrase means that they were divisive, creating factions in the church—the usual practice of heretics. Or Jude may refer to the later Gnostics’ division of men into the spiritual (the Gnostics) and the sensual (those for whom there is no hope). worldly-minded. An ironic description of false teachers, who labeled others as “sensual.” devoid of Spirit. Rather than being the spiritual ones—the privileged elite class the Gnostics claimed to be—Jude denies that they even possess the Spirit. A person who does not have the Spirit is clearly not saved (see Rom 8:9).

Rev 2:24 “But I say to you, the rest who are in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not known the deep things of Satan, as they call them—I place no other burden on you.”

NASB note v. 24: deep things of Satan. Later Gnosticism (see Introduction to 1 John: Gnosticism) taught that in order to defeat Satan one had to enter his stronghold, i.e., experience evil deeply.

Personal note: This last one reminds me of Nietzsche more than anything (I won’t quote him). What a fool. And what a fool I was, before I was saved. If God could save a fool like me, He can save anyone.

This concludes a review of the Biblical view of Gnosticism (and the extent of my awareness of it).

Astrophysics question for fun (time, matter/energy)

I have an astronomy question I was wondering if you could answer, or could point me in the right direction to getting the answer.

Hypothetically, if the past still exists and the future already exists – what would that say about matter/energy?

Scenario A:

The matter/energy of the past stays in the past, the matter/energy of the future is already there, and there is unique matter/energy in every moment. The matter/energy of each moment is not created in the “present” if the future already exists. Each moment (the universe, from beginning to end) must be created from beyond time.

Scenario B:

If the matter/energy of the past is the same matter/energy of the present and future, and the past/future exists (but outside the present) – then the past/future is empty of matter/energy (doesn’t that mean it doesn’t exist?)…. so then, the past/future doesn’t exist outside the present, or the matter/energy of the past is not the same matter/energy of the present/future (see scenario A).

But:

If prophets genuinely receive the future, then doesn’t that mean the future already exists? And being that prophets exist in the past of the foreseen future… doesn’t that mean the past still exists? If so, then scenario A must be true, or it must be possible for there to be a past/future (concept?) in God’s mind that is empty of matter/energy.

Do you see any kinks in my thinking?

"Now," if scenario A is right, from God's perspective, includes the whole universe from beginning to end. Say you represent that with a line. To us, we see one dot on the line at a time, moving from left (beginning) to right (end) ('cause that's how we read our books...). God sees all the dots at the same time -- He sees the line. His "now" is a line, our "now" is a dot.

My question is -- is matter/energy preserved in the line (scenario B, where the past/future is an immaterial concept in God's mind), or in the dot (scenario A)? If B, time travel is impossible. If A -- time travel is possible. You just switch some matter/energy between dots. But, that's a major tangent, now, isn't it? Makes me want to write sci-fi, haha. But, in the case of prophecy, no matter/energy switches around -- God just makes the necessary impressions on the prophet's brain so that s/he experiences the past/future as if it were present (that's one way of God's communication... He also just "tells" them Himself or through an angel).

I may have been (was in fact) wrong about that part in bold (or... right for the wrong reasons). If the past still exists, and the future already exists, then the dots are unchangeable (besides the fact that we co-created/-create them in the present, thanks to God), and any mixing between dots is preserved in the line (but, that mixing may not involve the exchange of matter/energy between dots, it could just be the communication of the future to the mind of a prophet, from beyond time). This means time-travel is impossible unless it is designed into the line from beyond time (God's perspective) (it could be either scenario A, where matter-energy is switched between dots, or scenario B, where there is no switching of matter-energy between dots, because only the present is material... but then that would mean that traveling out of the present is traveling into a mere concept of past/future, rather than into the material reality of past/future... and what would that be like?).

I was thinking... how do you switch matter/energy between dots (scenario A)... you'd have to have cooperation between people (or instances of your mad-scientist self) from two different dots. Simply, Sam Monday would have to switch places with Sam Friday (but it isn't that simple, because by the time Friday roles around, Sam's matter-energy is no longer identical to Sam Monday, and the switch wouldn't work). But, ultimately, it would take God's cooperation, for the reasons mentioned above. Maybe you wouldn't even need any scientific equipment to perform this. And... maybe... just maybe... you're doing this right now, and you just don't know it! Hahahahahaha! :lol: Reminds me of K-Pax.

To me, the universe could be "not deterministic" because it is "predetermined" (and so scenario A would fit, or it would fit that God has a concept of the past and future that are not 'material' -- a concept which includes emotions, reactions, experience, etcetera) -- have you read my "predestination and free will" thread?

For anyone wondering what this (the future already being predetermined by God) all might imply about free will...

The past has already happened and yet you had free will before it had already happened, right?

Why not apply the same reasoning to the future?

Whether or not it has already happened (scenario A), or God already knows how it is going to happen (modified scenario B), we still have free will, because He creates with our free choices in mind from beyond time.

Natural Empathy and Supernatural Love

Natural Empathy and Supernatural Love

In this thread I’m just making sure my ideas on morality are consistent…

Some verses on generally revealed morality: Luke 6:32-35; Romans 1:19; 2:14.

A while back I compiled a list of potentially conflicting ideas I was holding, and set it on the back-burner. I have since returned to it, and wanted to show how the ideas, as it turns out, are not conflicting. This list was sparked when I read about general revelation in the universality of ethical principles, mentioned in "Intro. to Philo." by Geisler and Feinberg. It mentions Romans 2:14-15 and C.S. Lewis’ assembling of many creeds in the appendix to The Abolition of Man and his mention that "the great moral creeds of mankind's civilizations have given testimony to the general revelation of God in the striking resemblance of their basic ethical principles," (362). I don’t know why I never considered it when reading Romans 2:14… I guess I just wasn’t ready (some flavors take time to blend). This realization caused me to analyze everything I had said/thought previously that could be in error in the light of the realization, or at least needed to be linked with this realization. Consistency between beliefs is highly important to anyone who values Truth.

In my “meme” thread I said or implied values are temporary (not eternal) unless one adopts God’s values (unchangeable and everlasting). This thought, in connection with the new realization, leads to the question – are the values of “general revelation” God’s eternal values, or man’s temporary values? Something that sticks out almost right away is that the similar principles found in those creeds are not necessarily the same as God’s moral law – which is higher. “Even sinners love those who love them (general revelation)…. Love your enemy (special revelation),” (Luke 6:32-35).

In a “problem of evil” thread external to this site, I said “Evil is not a surpassing, however. It is a degeneration (and I’ll add, in this thread, ‘or denaturizing’). Of course humans cannot surpass God in stuff where surpassing applies. God would be the perfection implied by 'degeneration'. It is not God who is degenerating -- He is distinct from His creation, though also intimately relating with it. Humans, in the image of God, degenerate apart from Him -- the only way back is atonement,” and again “evil is not part of life or nature as they are meant to be – but is a degeneration.” This leads to the question – are the values of “general revelation” a degeneration apart from God, or an example of God’s eternal values? If reality, which includes nature and super-nature, was meant to be a certain way (in union with God, only possible super-naturally), and evil is a degeneration from that (disunity with God) – then general revelation in nature (as seen in “the striking resemblance of the basic ethical principles” in “the great moral creeds of mankind’s civilizations”) is not really all of reality, since it is not God’s supernaturally moral law (unity with God, the summit of love, only possible super-naturally). I think if we throw in the idea that “the similar principles found in those creeds are not necessarily the same as God’s moral law – which is higher,” then it will produce the answer that the values of general revelation point to something higher, as did the ‘old covenant’ – it pointed to the covenant of grace. It might also be helpful to review my “Wanted: The Old Testament -- dead… or alive?" on this site.

Also in the “problem of evil” thread external to this site, I said God’s moral law is implementable in (passing the “ought implies can” test), but not sustained by, the natural universe (because following His law requires His super-natural intervention; nature is only part of reality, not the whole of reality). At first this made me ask -- are the values of general revelation not an example of God’s moral law being both implementable in and sustained by the natural universe? But, as we just saw a couple paragraphs up, God’s moral law is more than what is received in general revelation. Also, once human perception enters the picture, nature isn’t the only ‘sustainer’ (one could argue nature is ‘never’ the only sustainer) – humans take over that role. That our nature includes empathy is part of general revelation, and what we do with that empathy is super-natural selection.

In reply to someone who says that it is immoral to go against natural selection, and moral to allow natural selection to take its course: Something you may not realize is that you are calling human free will "supernatural selection". Would you disagree with that? I would not disagree -- as long as one realizes it (as well as supernatural miracles) is not "anti-natural". Supernatural and natural are both part of reality as a whole. But when you realize this, you realize that for us to execute every repeat offender -- is not "natural selection" -- it is the same "supernatural selection" we do when we help them (anti-recidivism programs). Our very perceptual presence makes it impossible for "natural selection" (if it has anything to do with anything) to run its course as if we weren't there... because we are responsible for whatever action or non-action is taken.

Also in the “problem of evil” thread (external to this site), while we’re talking about empathy, I said God can’t put (against our will) empathy or values in our heart; that what we learn about empathy and values (including from others’ suffering) is how He puts it (though not against our will) into our hearts (because to put empathy or values in our heart against our will is not love, because love must be chosen freely… see my “predestination and free will” thread). In a social psychology course one learns empathy is a natural inclination (general revelation, ought implies can), and the lacking of it is like a birth defect. Additionally, though empathy may be a natural inclination, it must be nurtured, much like a plant must be nurtured in order to grow well. I feel it necessary to clarify that the fact we are born with the inclination for empathy does not mean it has been put in our heart against our will – without it, we would have no will, as it is part of what makes our will possible. Studies show that the reason certain individuals who lack empathy have such a hard time navigating through life is that they cannot empathize with their own self (in the future, in planning) in order to act in their own best interest – this is a huge obstacle to the will (an obstacle God can remove, if asked). General revelation (empathy) is ‘nature’ (plus a human’s super-natural selection, mentioned above) – and both God’s law and an underdeveloped conscience are learned (nurtured, the former example being super-nature, the latter being de-nature). God’s law would be super-nature or super-nurture, since it existed before the generally revealed (in nature) moral law, and does not depend on human learning for its existence.

Lastly, in my thread “Biological Homeostasis and Existential Intelligence” (in a reply to the original thread external to this site) I write, “I guess you could unintentionally conform to God’s will (general revelation) if you didn’t know that loving is God’s will. The only problem with that is the love of which we are capable apart from God is a mere hint of the love He desires to share with us, and in turn share with eachother (in this thread I will add that this is ‘supernatural, special revelation’).”

Predestination and Free Will

This thread updates the old "determinism and free will" thread.

Predestination and Free Will

I start off asking a question for the purpose of introducing concepts in its answer: freedom and determinism: compatible or incompatible? Ultimately, though, the question is: predestination and free will… either/or… or both/and? It will be shown that determinism and predestination are different concepts – this is a key difference between this thread and the old thread.

Freedom and determinism: compatible or incompatible?

Defining freedom:

Incompatibilist freedom: “there are no conditions prior to an action that determine that action,” (p. 195, Intro. to Philo.).
Compatibilist freedom: “there can be conditions prior to an action sufficient to determine that action, and yet that action can be free,” (p. 195, ibid.).

Defining determinism:

Determinism: “theories about universal causation and total predictability … the belief that all events are governed by laws,” (pp. 194-195, ibid.). “By ‘determinists’ here we mean those who deny that in moral decisions we are free to do other than we do. A determinist, as opposed to a self-determinist, believes that all moral acts are not caused by ourselves but are caused by someone (or something) else,” (p. 31, Chosen But Free; CBF).

Different views:

The Two-Level Theory (reasons are not causes) “maintains that beliefs in determinism and free will are in some sense independent. … Reasons are essentially different from causes,” (204, Intro. to Philo.). I’m not really interested in going into this.

Hard Determinism (no free will) “applies to what we may call the physiological states and changes in our body such as height, weight, growth, pulse rate, and so forth, as well as to our purposive deliberative behavior. …If the hard determinist account of action is true, it is difficult to see how anyone can be responsible for his actions. The only basis of either praise or blame is to be found in its consequences. … One imagines that he deliberates, but that is exactly what it is, an imagination. … The hard determinist denies that any alternative action is causally possible. Every action is necessary,” (198, Intro. to Philo.).

Theological determinism – “the view that God ordains every event and situation; man does not have the capacity to choose or influence his own ultimate destiny,” (205, ibid).

Soft Determinism (compatibilist) claims “(1) determinism is true, and therefore events including human behavior, voluntary or otherwise, arise from antecedent conditions, making alternative kinds of behavior impossible; (2) voluntary behavior, however, is free to the degree that it is not performed under external compulsion; and (3) in the absence of external constraint the causes of voluntary actions may be traced to certain states, events, or conditions within the agent, namely his will or volitions, choices, decisions and/or desires,” (199, ibid). “Soft determinists assert that all that is necessary (to consider the will ‘free’) is that we have reasons, we decide, and we carry out decisions without external compulsion,” (201, ibid) (they deny contra-causal power).

Jonathan Edwards’ divine determinism -- “Jonathan Edwards ‘solved’ the problem of predestination and free will by claiming that (1) free will is doing what we desire; (2) but God gives us the desire to do good,” (23, CBF). This does not solve the problem because it does not account for evil desires, which God cannot give.

R.C. Sproul -- “In spite of the fact that his mentor, Jonathan Edwards, rejects the view of human freedom called self-determination, R.C. Sproul speaks of free will as ‘self-determination’ … but Sproul simply means it is not determined (caused) by anything external to itself. It is determined by things internal to itself, namely, by its nature. This is not what is meant in this discussion by a ‘self-determined action,’ which is one freely caused by the self (the I) without either external or internal constraint,” (21, CBF).

Simple Indeterminism (no determinism) contends that uncaused events are our free acts, not governed by any law, scientific or otherwise. “Some defenders … invoke Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty … the basis for the quantum theory in physics,” (201-201, Intro. to Philo.). However, “if we should conceive of a decision as utterly without any cause (this would in all strictness be the indeterministic presupposition) then the act would be entirely a matter of chance, for chance is identical with the absence of a cause; there is no other opposite of causality,” (393, Schlick*).

Libertarianism (self-determinism) asserts “that our free actions are neither caused by another (as in determinism) nor are they uncaused (as in indeterminism). Rather, they are self-caused. Hence, the view is sometimes called self-determinism because of the theory of personal agency. / A human being (person or self… even Hume presupposes the real existence of an ‘I’ or entity behind his impressions which gives unity to them) is sometimes, although admittedly not always, a self-determining being. We are, in other words, sometimes the cause of our own behavior (not causing our self, but causing our behavior). The libertarian holds that for an action to be free it must be caused by the agent who performs it, and it must be done in such a way that no antecedent conditions are sufficient for the performance of that act. If an action is both free and rational, the action must be done for a reason, although the reason is not the action’s cause. This means that we could always have done otherwise. At least two possibilities were live options. / This account of freedom is the only one which does justice to the deeply-ingrained intuition that we do have contra-causal power. Second, this view alone makes any sense of the activity of deliberation. All the positions examined to this point, so it is argued, really do not properly account for human deliberation,” (202-203, Intro. to Philo.).

***

Predestination and free will… either/or… or both/and?

Geisler & Feinberg’s discussion on libertarianism (self-determinism) in “Intro. to Philo.” does not address the reality that “…our free actions are determined from the standpoint of God’s foreknowledge,” (45) as Geisler does in “Chosen But Free”. Chosen But Free compares extreme Calvinism, which sacrifices free will to save predestination, extreme Arminianism, which sacrifices predestination to save free will, and the preferred moderate Calvinism, which shows free will is compatible with predestination. In “Intro. to Philo” it is said that “libertarianism holds that determinism and freedom are incompatible,” (202). This is because there is a difference between the concept of determinism mentioned above, and the way the universe is actually determined (predestination).

Defining predestination compatible with free will:

“Whatever God foreknows must come to pass (i.e., is predetermined). … By ‘determined’ here we do not mean that the act is directly caused by God. It was caused by human free choice (which is a self-determined act). By ‘determined’ it is meant that the inevitability of the event was fixed in advance since God knew infallibly that it would come to pass. Of course, God predetermined that it would be a self-determined action. God was only the remote and primary remote cause. Human freedom was the immediate and secondary cause,” (44, CBF). Predestination “implies that God has actually determined (rather than simply saw) in advance the destiny of creatures,” (wikipedia). Consider that “God not only created all things, He also upholds all things. Hebrews declares that God is ‘sustaining all things by His powerful word’ (Heb. 1:3). Paul adds, ‘He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together’ (Col. 1:17). John informs us that God not only brought all things into existence but He keeps them in existence. Both are true for ‘they were created and have their being’ from God (Rev. 4:11). There is ‘one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live’ (1 Cor. 8:6; cf. Rom. 11:36). Hebrews asserts ‘it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering’ (Heb. 2:10),” (12, CBF).

“First, it is possible that God knows from eternity that an event that is future to us would one day occur (and then be true). In this case, it would not be true in advance before it occurred, but it would be true that God knew in advance that it would one day occur and then be actually true.

“Second, … God … is eternal, that is, beyond time … Hence, nothing is future to God. If God is beyond time, then all time is spread before Him in one eternal now. He sees the way a man on the top of the hill sees the whole train at once, while the man in the tunnel below sees only one car going by at a time, noticing neither the one already past nor the one yet to come. God is not standing on one day of the calendar of time, looking back at the days past and forward to the days to come. Rather, He is looking down on the whole calendar, seeing all the days at once (cf. 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2),” (110-111, CBF).

Questions in Wikipedia’s predestination article answered:

1. “Is God’s predetermining decision based solely on a knowledge of His own will, or does it also include a knowledge of whatever will happen?” (wiki)

Both. God’s predetermination is in accord (1 Peter 1:2) with His foreknowledge. If based solely on His will, this is ‘voluntarism’ which “affirms something is right simply because God willed it, rather than God willing it because it is right in accordance with His own unchangeable nature (a view called essentialism). If voluntarism is accurate, then there is no moral problem with irresistible grace on the unwilling, limited atonement, or even double-predestination. If, on the other hand, God’s will is not ultimately arbitrary, then extreme Calvinism collapses,” (244). The alternative to voluntarism is essentialism, which “contends that God wills it because it is right. … There are two basic forms of essentialism: either God is bound to will things in accordance to some standard outside Himself (as in Plato’s Good) or else by the standard inside Himself (namely, His own nature). The latter is held by Christian essentialists,” (247, CBF). On the other hand -- “if God’s choice to save was based on those who choose Him (‘whatever will happen,’ wiki), then it would not be based on divine grace but would be based on human decisions,” (51, CBF) (Romans 9:16). He does not base His choice on who He foresees will receive His gift (Arminianism) – but He knows in advance who will receive His salvation (persuasive, but not coercive) because He is beyond time. For more on this, go here:

http://jesuschristsonofgodsavior.blogspot.com/2008/01/god-wills-it-right-because-he-is-good.html

2. “How particular is God’s prior decision: is it concerned with particular persons and events, or is it limited to broad categories of people and things?” (wiki)

Both. He is intimately familiar with every detail. However, His sovereignty does not prevent free choice. Even if you have the power to force your child to behave a certain way, you can still step back and allow your child to make her own decision. The same is true in the case of God’s power and our decisions.

3. “How free is God in effecting His part in the eventual outcome? Is God bound or limited by conditions external to His own will, willingly or not, in order that what has been determined will come to pass?” (wiki)

God is free because this is all determined from beyond time (from His perspective, there is no “in order that (it) will come to pass” – it has already happened). God is bound to will according to His own nature. This sounds like determinism (above) but it isn’t, because He incorporates our free choices from beyond time. We, made in God’s image, are co-creator creations.

Furthermore, the same sort of considerations apply to the freedom of man’s will.

1. “Assuming that an individual had no choice in who, when and where to come into being: How are the choices of existence determined by what he is?” (wiki)

“Don’t my background, training, and environment affect what I do? Yes, they do, but they do not force me to do it. They affect my actions, but they do not effect (i.e., cause) them. They influence but do not control my actions,” (26, 27, CBF). This includes predisposed or biological inclinations or character traits. I think this is important because I used to be the sort of determinist who would say that knowledge does not increase freedom as far as free will is concerned – everything we come to know determines how we will think, feel, behave, etcetera, differently, from that point on. I no longer deny free will, and the most essential person we can ever come to know who will lead us to increased freedom, on so many levels, is Jesus.

2. “Assuming that not all possible choices are available to him: How capable is the individual to desire all choices available, in order to choose from among them?” (wiki)

Only God is omniscient of all possible choices, and therefore only God is omnipotent (completely free). But one does not need complete freedom in order to exercise freedom; one need only two options, not all options, in order to make a choice. Granted, only one choice will be made, and from God’s perspective, the alternatives were never actual. Also, the closer our walk with God, the freer our will.

3. “How capable is an individual to put into effect what he desires?” (wiki)

This (like the previous questions) has nothing to do with whether or not he has free will, but it does point out there is a continuum of freedom. Not being able to perform what you ‘will’ (or ‘will’ all possible choices) does not negate the fact that you are freely willing. I disagree with a few philosophers that it isn’t “willed” unless it is “acted out”. That there is an obstacle does not negate the fact that if it were removed, I could then perform the action according to my free will that was free before and regardless of the performance of the action.

“Chosen But Free” (Geisler) goes into verses of the Bible to show how extreme Calvinists, extreme Arminians and moderate Calvinists interpret them. If you are curious about a particular passage, just ask. The book also goes into TULIP – the five points of Calvinism, and compares extreme and moderate Calvinism according to those five points. I can go into them if you like. I highly recommend you purchase the book, as well as “Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective” by Geisler and Feinberg.

*Moritz Schlick, “Freedom and Responsibility.” [reprinted in The Philosophical Quest: A Cross-Cultural Reader, McGraw Hill, 2000]. It is interesting to note that all the articles on this issue in the reader were of the soft-determinist “goin’ with the flow” variety – basically, I’m free if I like whatever thought/feeling/action I’m involved in (though I’m not causing it… I’m just riding the kind waves of determinism). They pretty much deny the reality of personal responsibility, deny the crashing waves are caused by our own splashing around…

I also said in the old thread that I wanted to answer the problem of evil, as it pertains to God’s eternal omniscience and omnipotence.

This quote is taken from pages 329-330 of Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective (Geisler, Feinberg) --


b. the second argument for dualism

The second argument for dualism is more of an argument against non-dualism (especially theism). The dualist says that the theist cannot escape the following conclusion:
(1) God is the author of everything that exists.
(2) Evil is something that exists.
(3) Therefore, God is the author of evil.

Since theists affirm God’s sovereignty and creative power over all that exists, they cannot deny premise 1. Likewise, since theists do not, like pantheists, deny the reality of evil, they cannot deny premise 2. But this means theists seem stuck with an unwanted conclusion, since it makes God directly responsible for creating evil.

Theists respond to both premises. First, God is the author of some things only indirectly. For example, God created freedom, but He does not perform acts of evil Himself or through man’s free choice. To state it another way, God does not create evil directly or essentially but only incidentally. God is directly responsible only for the fact of freedom, not for all the acts of freedom. Of course, God did create the possibility of evil when He made men free. But it is free creatures who bring about the actuality of evil. God is indirectly responsible for evil in that He made evil possible. But the possibility of evil is actually a good—it is necessary for human freedom. The power of free choice is a good power; the fact that men abuse freedom does not make freedom bad. Men abuse everything, including the water and air in their environment. But this obviously does not mean that water and air are bad.

Many theists also object to the second premise. Evil is not a “thing” (or substance). Evil is a privation, or absence of good. Evil exists in another entity (as rust exists in a car or rot exists in a tree), but does not exist in itself. Nothing can be totally evil (in a metaphysical sense). One cannot have a totally rusted car or a totally moth-eaten garment. For if it were completely destroyed, then it would not exist at all. The Christian points to Scripture which says everything God made was “good” (Gen. 1:31); even today “every creature of God is good” (1 Tim. 4:11), and “nothing is unclean in itself” (Rom. 14:14). To be sure, the Bible teaches that men are totally depraved in a moral sense, since sin has extended to the whole man, including his mind and will (Rom. 3; Eph. 2). But total depravity is to be taken in an extensive sense (affecting the whole man), not in an intensive sense (destroying the very essence of man).

When the theist says that evil is no “thing” (substance) he is not saying evil is “nothing” (that is, unreal). Evil is a real privation. Blindness is real—it is the real privation of sight. Likewise it is real to be maimed—it is a genuine lack of limb or sense organ.

Evil is not mere absence, however. Arms and eyes are absent in stones, but we would not say that stones are deprived of arms and eyes. A privation is more than an absence; it is an absence of some form or perfection that should be there (by its very nature).
Relevant article:  Does free will conflict with sovereignty?

Can God do the meaninglessly impossible? *yawn*

Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?

It's about logical paradox. When something is a paradox, it loses meaning.

God cannot make a rock so heavy He cannot lift it, because that is a meaningless statement.

God cannot defy logic. He is still, however, all-powerful.

God doesn't defy logic. God is rational by nature. To be all-powerful means to have the ability to perform all that is possible (logically meaningful) to perform. Therefore He cannot do things which are logically meaningless, like create something that is logically impossible -- a rock He can't lift... or do something that defies His perfect nature -- like lie (with malicious intent). (Keeping the future from us is not a malicious lie.)

Ultimately it is not an exercise of power, but of weakness, to do things which defy God's perfect nature.

God is still free when His nature is rational. To explain, I will quote from Geisler and Feinberg's "Intro. to Philo. / A Christian Perspective" --

"Essentialists contend that God's nature is the ultimate norm in accordance with which His will cooperates. ...God wills what is essentially good without there being some ultimate standard beyond Himself. The ultimate norm for all good flows from the will of God but only in accordance with the nature of God. Thus God is neither arbitrary nor less than ultimate," (323).

God's nature is good and rational, and He wills in accordance with His nature -- which is not beyond Himself.

This means there is no such thing as a rock He can't lift (it is impossible for such a rock to exist) -- and He can't create a thing that is impossible to exist, because it has no meaning.

For all the same reasons, He cannot create a situation where He can lie maliciously, nor can He create a God greater than Himself. It is impossible for Him to change His own rational, good nature... to do that would be to defy His nature. He is the only truly free being because of His nature -- to defy His nature (impossible for God) equates to bondage and weakness, not freedom and strength.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5160
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rock.html

Here's something I hadn't mentioned yet... from my "Intro to Philo. / A Christian perspective" book by Geisler and Feinberg....

Other theists explain that the problem begins with the use of a double negative: "If God cannot make a stone that He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent." If we were to put this into logical notation, however, the statement would read: "Any stone which God can make, He can lift."
p. 274


The question, "Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it," is not asking "is there omnipotence" -- but, instead, is asking "what is the nature of omnipotence?" -- it is not asking "Is God ominipotent?" or "Is omnipotence possible?" -- it is asking, "does being omnipotent mean you can even contradict your own omnipotence?" And the answer is: no -- that is not what omnipotence means. Omnipotence applies to the real world, and things that are meaningless, contradictory, and paradoxical are not part of the real world.

"A rock so big God can't lift it" -- think about that all by itself. It contradicts His omnipotence and is therefore a meaningless figment of the imagination. A rock so big God can't lift it is a logical impossibility. That is why people answer "God cannot do the impossible" -- it is shorthand.

There is a verse that says "With God, all things are possible," -- but He is not talking about logical impossibilities -- He is talking about reality. Creating a rock so big God can't lift it is not an "anything" it is a "nothing."

While we're on the note of omnipotence despite not exercising it -- in Jesus we see true omnipotence. He could have brought swift justice to His accusers, but He sacrificed His life for them instead (and rose again, 'cause He's God).

Google+ Page