Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Babies etc: Tyrel and RBerman

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I no longer hold to any "age of accountability"; I freely grant that God may perhaps choose to grant mercy as he wishes, but much of the argumentation I have seen strikes me as rather philosophical rather than exegetical, and the one passage I have seen to try to suggest one involving David's stillborn infant strikes me as a weak argument.

    Incidentally, since I adopted annihilationism, I have found this a much easier pill to swallow on a personal level. It seems to take a lot of the sting of the emotional argumentation about babies in hell; that and viewing life in terms of being a gift from God. But I am not attempting to make this into a thread about that.

    Of course, if God does wish to extend mercy broader than we expect, that would be joyous, but I do not think we can be dogmatic about it.
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
      I no longer hold to any "age of accountability"; I freely grant that God may perhaps choose to grant mercy as he wishes, but much of the argumentation I have seen strikes me as rather philosophical rather than exegetical, and the one passage I have seen to try to suggest one involving David's stillborn infant strikes me as a weak argument.

      Incidentally, since I adopted annihilationism, I have found this a much easier pill to swallow on a personal level. It seems to take a lot of the sting of the emotional argumentation about babies in hell; that and viewing life in terms of being a gift from God. But I am not attempting to make this into a thread about that.

      Of course, if God does wish to extend mercy broader than we expect, that would be joyous, but I do not think we can be dogmatic about it.
      We should never suppose God to be too merciful. Indeed, if we allow Jesus to influence how we interpret Scripture and perceive the character of God too much, we may begin to doubt God's vindictiveness. Never shall it be!
      For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

      Comment


      • #18
        More seriously, the best we may be able to do is trust that God knows how to handle matters relating to the death of infants, "the age of accountability", &c. Scripturally we are provided little to work with in many of these areas we have deep questions and concerns about. Ultimately we must trust that God is good (and not "good" in an Alice in Wonderland kind of way). Lies pertaining to God's character have been perpetuated since the beginning. I'm afraid Christians throughout the centuries have often been the most guilty at promulgating the most magnificent of these kinds of lies. Yet I suppose we may believe the lies if it makes us feel more theologically sound or objective. Alas.
        Last edited by The Remonstrant; 02-28-2014, 05:27 PM.
        For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

        Comment


        • #19
          Job also said that he himself would have been better off stillborn. I don't consider it a weak argument at all.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
            Job also said that he himself would have been better off stillborn. I don't consider it a weak argument at all.
            It was a rhetorical expression of how anguished he was. We can't trust that everything Job said was theologically accurate. Indeed, God lets Job know just how far off base much of what he says was near the end of that book.
            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

            Comment


            • #21
              Well, if you're going to start saying that Job and David were wrong, then yeah that would obviously undermine the argument.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                Someone with minimal cognition has very little ability for actual thoughts of rebellion against God, but that doesn't mean that his soul is not in rebellion. In my understanding of the Roman doctrine of "limbo," unbaptized infants occupy the mildest circle of hell: Hell by virtue of their Original Sin, which makes them guilty; and the mildest circle by virtue of their very limited ability, because for those to whom little is given, little is required. That seems biblical, except that (1) the mildest circle may still be pretty bad, and (2) I don't believe in an opere ex operato baptismal removal of Original Sin. I do allow that God may choose to regenerate anyone whom He wishes, whether an infant or otherwise, to change rebellion into faith and thus salvation. Concerning whether God does this for all, some, or no infants, Scripture is silent, and so am I.
                And so, as it happens, is the Catholic Church. There are a variety of positions which Catholics espouse on this issue. First, there is the Augustinian view of Limbo, which is (close enough to) what you describe above. There is also the Thomistic notion which is considerably more attractive; see here: "It should be noted, however, that this poena damni incurred for original sin implied, with Abelard and most of the early Scholastics, a certain degree of spiritual torment, and that St. Thomas was the first great teacher who broke away completely from the Augustinian tradition on this subject, and relying on the principle, derived through the Pseudo-Dionysius from the Greek Fathers, that human nature as such with all its powers and rights was unaffected by the Fall (quod naturalia manent integra), maintained, at least virtually, what the great majority of later Catholic theologians have expressly taught, that the limbus infantium is a place or state of perfect natural happiness."
                Finally there is the position you hint at towards the end of your post, that God regenerates such infants. The Catholic Church has no formal and binding teaching on the matter - she never has. This is why none of these three doctrines can be found in the Church's Catechism, which codifies the faith of the Church not only in the tradition of the Latin Rite, but across all her Rites and traditions.

                Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                Libertarian Free Will strikes me as both unnecessary (trying to solve a problem that the Bible does not encourage us to think of as a problem) and self-contradictory, since it appears to entail wanting what you don't want. I find no biblical warrant for Kant's axiom as a good summary of Divine justice, nor any confidence that we know what the soul of an infant cannot do. A child in the womb, like a child or adult outside the womb, ought not to rebel against his Maker.
                I feel as though there must be some misunderstanding here about just what libertarian free will is. A good starting definition might go like this: Sally is a libertarian free agent if and only if there is some possible circumstance C in which Sally is presented with mutually excluding options A and B, and there is a set of logically possible worlds where, in C, Sally chooses A, and another set of logically possible worlds where, in C, Sally chooses B. Perhaps you would say that for any two choices A and B, one will always be more desirable, and people always select the option which they more greatly or deeply or ultimately desire, but that's wrong for two reasons: first A and B might be perfectly equal commensurable goods (consider a Buridan's Ass example), and second because the desirability of A and the desirability of B might be based on incommensurable senses in which each is good. The reason libertarian free will is important is that if a person in circumstance C confronted with mutually excluding choices A and B must of nomic (law-like) and exception-less necessity choose A rather than B, then a person can no more be held liable for their actions (or their desires) than a mountain can be held liable for causing death and suffering with an avalanche.

                Another reason Libertarian Free Will is important is that God has libertarian free will, and that man is made in the image of God, which seems to involve man's also having free will. God clearly has free will: the Christian (or in any case 'Catholic') doctrine of creatio ex nihilo does specify that God freely chose to create the world, and that nothing, not even the goodness of creating a world, compelled him to do so. He did so freely, and he just as well could have refrained from doing so.

                Finally, to tie this back into the discussion about babies, Catholics believe that while children are born with original sin, they have not had occasion yet to commit personal sin, since this requires i) grave matter ii) free intention, and iii) a moral knowledge of right and wrong.

                Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                I am not familiar with those terms. I find presuppositionalism as I understand it a useful tool, but not to the exclusion of evidentiary apologetics as well. Really most people don't respond well to logical appeals anyway. We believe what we want to believe, and then we look for some sort of post hoc justification to rationalize our biases.
                You should most certainly look up presuppositionalism and think about it. If I were a Protestant, that's what I'd want to be. If you have iTunes you can look up lectures on Cornelius van Till. If you want to hear a good debate over presuppositionalism you may like listening to this debate between Greg Bahnsen (who was the prize pupil of van Till) and R.C. Sproul: http://www.philvaz.com/SproulBahnsenDebate.mp3

                Also, see: http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={68AB76A0-856C-4D96-8180-E51D8EF80C04}

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Tyrel View Post
                  I feel as though there must be some misunderstanding here about just what libertarian free will is. A good starting definition might go like this: Sally is a libertarian free agent if and only if there is some possible circumstance C in which Sally is presented with mutually excluding options A and B, and there is a set of logically possible worlds where, in C, Sally chooses A, and another set of logically possible worlds where, in C, Sally chooses B. Perhaps you would say that for any two choices A and B, one will always be more desirable, and people always select the option which they more greatly or deeply or ultimately desire, but that's wrong for two reasons: first A and B might be perfectly equal commensurable goods (consider a Buridan's Ass example), and second because the desirability of A and the desirability of B might be based on incommensurable senses in which each is good. The reason libertarian free will is important is that if a person in circumstance C confronted with mutually excluding choices A and B must of nomic (law-like) and exception-less necessity choose A rather than B, then a person can no more be held liable for their actions (or their desires) than a mountain can be held liable for causing death and suffering with an avalanche.
                  I see a couple of problems with your explanation:

                  1) Are any two things every truly "perfectly equal" in the real world, as opposed to in a thought experiment?
                  2) On what basis do you determine the circumstances under which a person can or cannot be held liable for their actions? Is this issue discussed in the Bible, or is it a framework spun by philosophers based on their own joint opinions about justice?

                  Another reason Libertarian Free Will is important is that God has libertarian free will, and that man is made in the image of God, which seems to involve man's also having free will. God clearly has free will: the Christian (or in any case 'Catholic') doctrine of creatio ex nihilo does specify that God freely chose to create the world, and that nothing, not even the goodness of creating a world, compelled him to do so. He did so freely, and he just as well could have refrained from doing so.
                  If Libertarian Free Will exists, then God has it. But the question under consideration is whether LFW is a coherent concept, so we can't very well beg the question by appealing to God's possession of a trait which may not even make sense conceptually. God surely acts freely, but does the philosophical construct of Libertarian free will best describe God's freedom?

                  Finally, to tie this back into the discussion about babies, Catholics believe that while children are born with original sin, they have not had occasion yet to commit personal sin, since this requires i) grave matter ii) free intention, and iii) a moral knowledge of right and wrong.
                  Each of these points would have to be defended separately; I do not accept any of them at face value because (i) All sin, as rebellion against God, is a grave matter, though some sins are even more grave; (ii) freedom defined as LFW seems problematic for reasons we're discussing above; (iii) This comes in degrees, but I see no Biblical basis to assume it ever reaches zero in a human created in God's image.

                  Comment

                  widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                  Working...
                  X