[Vision2020] Response to Keely on Forgiveness

[Joe Campbell]

Nick,

Great dialogue between you and Keely! I hope folks are aware of how  
lucky they are to get such a thoughtful exchange!

After reading more I think I get Keely's point on blasphemy now and I  
wonder what you think of it.

A few points about free will. First, I thought that most process folks  
accepted free will and that it was essential to their view. This is  
certainly true of Whitehead and Hartshorne, the two I know best. In  
fact, the whole point if rejecting God's complete omniscience and of  
adopting the view of time that you adopt - the flowing time view I  
call it - is to save free will, on Hartshorne's view.

Second, as you know I have my doubts that full omniscience and even  
the space-time view as I call it - the second view of time noted  
above, where time is just another dimension like the dimensions of  
space - are incompatible with free will. This is a long standing  
debate, one that we are not going to settle here but I can respond to  
the idea that on such a model God is a jokester.

First a bit about the model. Both God and humans are 4 dimensional  
creatures, spread out in time and space. One difference is that while  
we experience things in 3D God experiences them in 4D. Thus he sees  
the future like we see the present. It isn't that he experiences time  
as we do, first doing one thing (punishing) and then another  
(forgiving). Nor does that supposition follow from the space-time  
view. It follows from the combination of views, the idea that time  
would continue to flow for a creature spread out through eternity.  
Note that this view too makes God's immutability easier to take.

Lastly some traditional theists adopt Universalism, the view that  
heaven awaits us all, and claim that it is consistent with the Text.  
Not that I know how or why. Keith DeRose is one proponent you might  
check out since most of his papers are available on-line.

Like always, I'm still unsettled about what I think about most of  
this. But I will say if "heretics" like you and Chas won't be joining  
me in heaven, I'm not sure I want to go! Not that I've been invited yet.

Joe Campbell

On Jan 20, 2009, at 5:41 PM, <nickgier at roadrunner.com> wrote:

> Dear Keely,
>
> I'm been so busy studying the Israeli-Palestinian problem, saying  
> good-bye to
> Bush, and welcoming President Obama, that I've neglected to answer  
> your response to my forgiveness column.
>
> I'm afraid that you have conflated divine omniscience and  
> immutability. The
> practical joke point that Anne Minas made focused on omniscience not
> immutability.  The forgiveness of a presidential pardon involves not  
> knowing
> future mitigating facts that may justifying a pardon.  Saying that  
> God's
> response here is a joke may be unkind and misleading, so let's just  
> say that it
> is a divine impossibility. This type of forgiveness is not possible  
> for a being
> who already knows the future, in this case, the new facts that makes  
> the pardon intelligible and justifiable.
>
> Orthodox Catholicism and Protestantism have always held a "hard"  
> view of
> immutability. It is not merely something like "God's promises never  
> change";
> rather, it means that God never changes in his being.  If divine  
> forgiveness
> means giving up resentment, then this requires a change of which the  
> orthodox God is incapable.
>
> I'm sorry to hear that you abhor "process theology," because the  
> scriptural support for a dynamic Jehovah who tempts, regrets,  
> repents, shows his wrath and then his love, and then, presumably,  
> undergoes the most radical change in cosmic history (namely, the  
> Incarnation) is overwhelming.  This is a process God par excellence.
>
> You must also be aware of the fact that there is a school of  
> evangelical
> theologians who support the idea of an open (rather than closed)  
> future.  These theologians reject your claim that "God knew it all  
> along," a claim that makes most devotional talk about God  
> unintelligible.
>
> In the end we must choose between two ideas of time: the neo- 
> Platonic, orthodox Christian idea that it is past, present, and  
> future all fused together in an Eternal Now, or a temporal process  
> from the past, through the present, and into a future that has not  
> yet happened.  (This is sometimes called the Arrow of Time.) These  
> two views contradict each other, and for the sake of
> intelligibility I choose the latter along with the process  
> theologians with whom
> I studied at Claremont.  God didn't give us reason and then want us  
> to throw it out the window at every theological turn. Now, that  
> would be a nasty practical joke!
>
> I appreciate your careful, although perhaps convoluted, explanation  
> of Jesus'
> apparent exception to forgiveness in Mark 3:26, but I guess I prefer  
> Krishna's
> radical, unconditional forgiveness.  The demons are saved whether  
> they want to do or not.  No one is left behind in Krishna's total,  
> unconditional grace.
>
> Instead of your water in the desert example, Doug Wilson once  
> explained in a theology class we team taught that Jesus' grace as  
> equivalent to a bank that promises to give $1 million dollars to the  
> anyone who comes to claim it. His point, I believe, is the same as  
> yours: the sinner has to make the effort and decide to accept the  
> gift.  As I understand it, Krishna does it all for us regardless.
>
> But doesn't that undermine freedom of the will?  For me that is a  
> moot point
> because Krishna and Christ as God cause, without exception,  
> everything to
> happen, so we don't have free will to begin with.
>
> All of the orthodox divine attributes cause intractable problems,  
> and that is
> why process theology throws them all out and starts fresh.  Besides,  
> most of them were derived from Greek ideas of God rather than the  
> Bible itself.
>
> Your friend in constructive theological debate,
>
> Nick
> ---- keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> Lasr week, my friend Nick Gier posted an essay on the divine or  
>> human origin
> of forgiveness.  The post was prompted by President Bush's list of  
> presidential
> pardons.  While Nick and I disagree on the origin of forgiveness, I  
> think we're
> both convinced that there is much Bush needs forgiveness for.
>>
>> That said, Nick asked my take on what he wrote, and so here it is:
>>
>> I believe that every deity in every faith calls on its followers to  
>> practice
> forgiveness; in this sense, I believe the ability to pronounce  
> blessing from
> offense is divine.  As a Christian, I believe that the LORD God  
> offers the
> forgiveness of the Creator to His creatures who offend the Law that  
> He has set
> forth; His primacy as LORD both qualifies and enables God to do  
> that, and my
> sinfulness both confirms and necessitates my seeking it.  But Nick  
> thinks that
> the doctrine of God's immutability -- the unchanging nature of God  
> -- strikes at
> the heart of the process theology he defends, a theology that  
> teaches that God
> cannot know that which is unknowable, or the future.  Because God  
> appears to
> "repent," "relent," or "change his mind" some 33 times in the  
> Scriptures, the
> Christian doctrine of immutability is not only untenable, but makes  
> His
> forgiveness a practical joke -- He assigns punishment to sins that  
> he knows he's
> going to remit, Nick says, quoting philosopher Ane Minas.  I'm  
> summarizing, of
> course, and I trust that I've done so respectfully and accurately.
>>
>> I abhor process theology, though, because it strikes at the very  
>> heart of the
> "trinity" of attributes God possesses as God.  He is omnipresent,  
> omniscient,
> and omnipotent; He is everywhere and never "not there," He is all- 
> knowing and
> never surprised; He is all-powerful and never stymied.  Because I  
> believe that
> the language of Scripture that attempts to describe God is by  
> necessity
> limiting, and perhaps unfortunately so, describing His mercy, mercy  
> that comes
> in response to a change in human behavior, as "repenting,"   
> "relenting" or
> "changing His mind" is bound to be unclear, appearing to mean what  
> it cannot
> (that, surprised, touched, or chagrined, He changed His mind) while  
> struggling
> to convey what it wants to.  The intent of words like "relented" is  
> to express
> His mercy in response to humankind's change of behavior -- but the  
> change is on
> our part,not His.  He knew it all along.
>>
>> I would also take issue with His suggestion that Mark 3:29 is an  
>> exception to
> Jesus' unconditional offer of forgiveness in Him.  The verse refers  
> to the
> impossibility of forgiveness for those who "blaspheme against the  
> Holy Spirit,"
> and Jesus' words are unequivocal -- that can't be forgiven.  But  
> it's a
> tautology; the only way the human being can receive forgiveness is  
> to respond to
> the promptings and conviction of the Holy Spirit in faith, and if  
> one refuses to
> do so -- if one rejects the Spirit, or "blasphemes" Him -- she or he  
> has refused
> the only means of forgiveness available.  If, in the driest, hottest  
> part of the
> Sonoran desert, someone is dying of thirst, and I have sufficient  
> water for him
> and for all like him, offered freely and endlessly, that person can  
> have his
> thirst "forgiven" -- done away with.  But if that person, under all  
> of the same
> circumstances, chooses anything and everything but the water that  
> could and
> would save him, he would die.  And I could rightly say that  
> "blaspheming" (if I
> may, simply for analogy's sake) my offer of water could not be  
> forgiven -- not
> because I didn't feel like forgiving him, but because he didn't take  
> the water
> that I offered and that was the only thing that could save his life.
>>
>> A note on "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" -- if you're worried that  
>> you've ever
> committed it, don't be.  Your concern shows that you've not  
> blasphemed the
> Spirit by hardening your heart completely.
>>
>> I appreciate Nick's request for my response and also his thoughts on
> forgiveness.  I'll end this with my belief that only the Perfect One  
> can
> forgive, and all of us Desperately Imperfect Ones need His  
> forgiveness.
>>
>> Keely
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>              http://www.fsr.net
>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================