It seems to me that some people are born with certain personalities (ex. an addictive personality) that almost seems like they didn't even have a chance before they were addicted to something. Are some people predestined to a life with more obvious sins to be examples for others to learn from? If so, is this just, in the sense that some never recover from these habits?
Regardless of someone's personality or bio-chemical predisposition, there still is almost always freedom of choice in living with or overcoming and addiction. That choice can be related to almost anything, including the choice to take action to overcome an addiction. I think asking whether someone is predestined to a life with sin is the wrong question, because all people live their lives with sin. Because we all experience sin, it makes the world appear unjust.
ReplyDeleteThe just part is that we are all given a way out of that sin by living life through Jesus. It is true that many will never overcome a particular addiction, or will struggle with it their entire lives, but I find it hard to believe that the reasoning is for them to be an example. That may be the reason, or it could be something else entirely. In the end, we will not know the exact reasoning for events in our lives until the day that we are with our Father in Heaven. Until then, we must have faith in Him and trust our lives to His plan.
I really like this question and the reply on behalf of "Anonymous" (May I call you "Luke"? You sound like a Luke, for some reason).
ReplyDeleteThere is a passage in the book of John which seems to ask this very same question. In John 9, we read of a man who was born blind:
As [Jesus] passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?" Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. "We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work. "While I am in the world, I am the R594 Light of the world." When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes, and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing (v. 1-7).
Granted, they don't use the word "predestination," but the idea that the Blind Man is somehow paying for the sins of his father conveys a very similar meaning. The first part of Jesus' response seems related to the question at hand, how could it be just for God to make this man suffer in being born blind just for the benefit of others? One may read this chapter allegorically: the Blind Man metaphorically represents all of us who are "born blind," and that the point of the story is to trust Jesus so he can heal your addictions. But while that reading is possibly one which I think John may have intended, what happens if we read it deliberately resisting an allegorical reading? What about that blind man?
We read that after Jesus "sends" him to the (very allegorical) pool of Siloam, the (now formerly) Blind Man finds himself wrapped up in a religious argument much greater than himself. As the authorities try to get a testimony from the Blind Man which would provide enough evidence to accuse Jesus of being "a sinner," the Blind Man instead replies by giving an honest account of what happened: "Though I was blind, now I see."
The Blind Man is literally "sent" to tell the story of how he recovered from his situation. (Notice too that it was part of the healing process for Jesus to send him to a place which meant "sent." Redundancy is often a clue to the importance of the concept.) The questioner is right that some never recover from addiction even if they do put their faith in Christ. Often the physical, emotional, spiritual, and/or psychological damage caused from addiction prior to conversion hinders the healing process long after the actual addictive substance has been removed. I think, though, that there is always a story involved in a true religious experience of conversion to Christianity. Without offering any certain answers, it seems from the example of the Blind Man that telling that story to others is part of the healing process. Regardless of whether or not the addiction finally claims a person's body in death, it may be that although the body is claimed by addiction, the life of the addict through the story of their conversion still belongs to Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteTo try on a straight answer to the question above, it may be that the Blind Man was born blind not in order to benefit others through his suffering at the hands of an unjust God, but to be blessed himself through blessing others with his story. In other words, the "works of God" in the passage from John 9 refer not only to Jesus' actual act of healing for the benefit of the crowd, but also in the Blind Man now having a story to call his own (empowerment, in a way: he is no longer just the end result of his father's sin) and in his act of sharing that story with others.
There are many answers to this question, and many ways to complicate the issue as well; but I'm just as interested in reading what others think.
Justice is....
ReplyDeleteWhat is Justice? Fairness. Who decides what is Fair? Me. Who agrees?
If we can't throw a ring around the author of justice, we're going to have a hard time earning the prized answer about a just predestination. So you tell me who defines justice and we'll go from there.
But to play the game, I will throw in my thoughts.
Premise1: To create a world devoid of justice is unjust.
Premise 2: If predestination means that my life's path is determined apart from my WILL, I think that it is most definitely unjust because justice requires individuals to exercise their WILL. What actions/intentions can be judged in a world without WILL? None. So in a world devoid of WILL we would conclude that just actions/intentions have the same value as unjust actions/intentions. Essentially, we have removed justice from the world.
Conclusion: Predestination as defined above causes an unjust event to unfold. Furthermore, Predestination is unjust.
Alright, I’m down for a good game of chess.
ReplyDeleteI have a very limited understanding of the free will and determinist (aka theological predestination) debate, but for starters here are some definitions:
Determinism - every event that occurs is determined by some force, be it natural laws, environment, God (predestination and divine foreknowledge), etc.
It seems not to be the case that free will and determinism are held at odds; like Good and Evil, for instance. The debate hinges around what one believes assuming both free will and determinism occur in a single worldview. Therefore, one may either be a compatibilist or an incompatibilist: either free will and determinism are compatible with one another or they are not.
For the compatibilist, although determinism is true in some relevant sense, we still have free will in other relevant senses. Each compatibilist has different arguments to work this out, but suffice it to say that even if determinism is true for the compatibilist, free will still exists.
The incompatibilist, however, posits that the truth of determinism will trump any exercise of free will. (Here is where it gets tricky. One might assume the hypothetical nature of the incompatibilist claim - IF determinism is true - means that we can hold a skepticism about whether or not determinism is in fact true, and under that skeptical outlook live as though free will dominates. The problem with this skeptical outlook goes back to Aristotle who kicked off the whole discussion by arguing that "if every affirmation or negation is true or false it is necessary for everything either to be the case or not to be the case.") So in order to go anywhere in the debate, we have to commit to a side.
The sides of incompatibilism:
Libertarians are perhaps the most difficult to understand. They hold that free will does exist in a world where determinism is false in a certain way; meaning that although determinism is true, there are certain instances where an action acts as a counter-example to such determinism. If you can imagine a situation where an event occurs with no specific cause, you might be a libertarian.
"Hard" determinists, on the other hand, claim that determinism is in fact true and provide arguments toward that end.
From here it gets highly technical. I lack the expertise to go into it further here, but if you're interested in some "light" reading on the subject, go here (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-arguments/).
Let me now attempt to lay out Brian's very interesting argument a different way. (Please let me know, Brian, whether I've done justice to your argument):
ReplyDeleteBrian's question: "Who defines justice if we grant that predestination is true?"
Two axioms from Dave's post:
(a) Predestination is true since the onus of the question is on the fact that some are born with suffering and that this appears to be unjust;
(b) As we are questioning a particular Christian worldview, we should also assume God is just and created the world in his image.
Brian’s argument:
1. "To create a world devoid of justice is unjust."
2. "Justice requires individuals to exercise their [free] WILL."
3. If predestination is true, it is false that humans have free will (incompatibilist "hard" view).
4. If predestination is true, then justice does not exist (from 2).
5. Moreover, if predestination is true, God has created a world devoid of justice (from b, 1).
6. Predestination is true (from a).
7. Since God is just (from b), premise 5 is a paradox and therefore false.
So...
8. Predestination is false and therefore unjust. Conversely, God has in fact created a just world governed by free will.
Answer to Brian's question: No one. For if predestination is true, there is no justice and therefore no one can have a "say" on anything.
In context of the larger question in the post from Dave: If God has predestined some to suffer, then we can have no say as to whether or not the suffering is "just" or “unjust” for the concept of justice does not exist in such a world.
Unless someone out there is an expert on this particular niche of philosophy, I don't think we can solve Brian's argument from a purely philosophical approach. It is a good argument. Valid, but not yet sound; for premise 3 is assumed rather than proven. Philosophers are still debating this issue (see the link above).
ReplyDeleteWhat is most interesting to me about Brian's argument is in how it ties the predestination issue to justice. We commonly think of justice as goodness granted to those who are morally good and punishment toward those who are morally corrupt.
One issue which arises with Brian's argument is that even if we grant a world of free will and no predestination, though still a world created and maintained by God (i.e. the open-theist position where God doesn't know what the next move in history will be, but only that he's the biggest kid on the playground and will win out in the end no matter what), it still seems that the world is unjust. Those who are morally good are often unjustly punished and those who are morally corrupt are often rewarded for the exercise of their free will.
Here's another pickle: So either predestination is true and the world is unjust; or predestination is false and the world is still unjust. Brian's final conclusion leads to a further paradox: If predestination is unjust, yet we still retain this concept of "justness" by which we judge certain events as either just or unjust, then it seems predestination is both true and false - a contradiction, logically false.
Although this sounds like I'm opening up a can of nerd on the quesiton at hand, the arguement above does provide an answer to the overall question in Dave's post. It's based on a logical arguement, so my move in this reply is an attempt to hash out that arguement to see whether this answer is sound or not.
What do you think? Any other chess players want to take a turn now that the board has been set?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete