The Problem of Good

[RobbyPants]

You're making a category error here.  You're initial claim is that people do [morally] bad things.  Then you claim people do good things.  You list getting a new job, healing, and doing well on a test as good things.  But these are not [morally] good things.

Strictly speaking, you're correct here. The terms are conflated when I got lazy talking about two things. Still, it applies to my broader point involving the special pleading used by apologists where God gets praised for good things and we get blamed for bad things. It doesn't have to apply to only "moral" actions.

But even if you take those examples out, my main point still works. Bad moral actions are attributed to people (free will), but God still gets praised when people take morally good actions (such as generous charity). It's still special pleading and it's inconsistent. The closest thing you could get to a defense here would be to say something like "People are in control of their own actions, but I was also praising God because the person took the good action". In that case, why not praise God during bad actions, too?

[orangebox21]

You're making a category error here.  You're initial claim is that people do [morally] bad things.  Then you claim people do good things.  You list getting a new job, healing, and doing well on a test as good things.  But these are not [morally] good things.

Strictly speaking, you're correct here. The terms are conflated when I got lazy talking about two things. Still, it applies to my broader point involving the special pleading used by apologists where God gets praised for good things and we get blamed for bad things. It doesn't have to apply to only "moral" actions.

But even if you take those examples out, my main point still works. Bad moral actions are attributed to people (free will), but God still gets praised when people take morally good actions (such as generous charity). It's still special pleading and it's inconsistent. The closest thing you could get to a defense here would be to say something like "People are in control of their own actions, but I was also praising God because the person took the good action". In that case, why not praise God during bad actions, too?

Interestingly, Paul does praise God during the bad actions. He does so as a testimony for God's mercy , and also recognizing that Christ has delivered us from our sinful condition.

Read Romans 6-7 and Galatians 2-3.

If the good we do is not of ourselves, but rather Christ living within us, then it logically follows that God should get the glory for the good we do. And if we bear within ourselves a sinful nature, then we bear the blame for the bad we do. Special pleading is when an exemption is made without adequate justification. In this case the exemption: God is responsible when we do good, but not responsible when we do bad, is made because in one instance it is me acting, and in the other instance it is God acting.

I am still curious if you are speaking of libertarian or compatibilist free will.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Why do you assume that Christians should blame God because he allows suffering when the Bible clearly teaches that believers can rejoice in times of trouble?

Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. - Romans 5:3-5

For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, . - Philippians 1:29

Count it all joy, my brethren, when you fall into various tribulation. . - James 1:2

Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. .
- Romans 8:17-18
Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. . – James 1:2-4

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. . - Romans 8:26

But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. . – 1 Peter 4:13

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Per Bible speak all actions are "good" if God tells you to do them and "bad" if you do them on your own. No action is "good" or "bad" on its own. If God tells you to kill a thousand people it's "good" when you do it. If you think that it's bad and don't do it then you have done a "bad" thing.

[RobbyPants]

Interestingly, Paul does praise God during the bad actions.

My OP wasn't talking about any one specific Christian, X. It's talking about them in aggregate. This seems to be the behavior and beliefs, most broadly speaking.

If the good we do is not of ourselves, but rather Christ living within us, then it logically follows that God should get the glory for the good we do.  And if we bear within ourselves a sinful nature, then we bear the blame for the bad we do.  Special pleading is when an exemption is made without adequate justification.  In this case the exemption: God is responsible when we do good, but not responsible when we do bad, is made because in one instance it is me acting, and in the other instance it is God acting.

So, we're only responsible when we do bad, but we can't do good on our own? Then why are we even held accountable? Why doesn't God compel us to do good better than he does. This setup actually puts all of the blame on God, rendering the free will defense moot.

I am still curious if you are speaking of libertarian or compatibilist free will.

I am unaware of the difference. I'm responding to apologetics other people use.

[RobbyPants]

Why do you assume that Christians should blame God because he allows suffering when the Bible clearly teaches that believers can rejoice in times of trouble?

I never said that in the OP. I'm wondering why we aren't credited for good when we're clearly blamed for all bad.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Why do you assume that Christians should blame God because he allows suffering when the Bible clearly teaches that believers can rejoice in times of trouble?

I never said that in the OP. I'm wondering why we aren't credited for good when we're clearly blamed for all bad.

Sorry I missed that. The answer is found in the distinction between the flesh and the indwelling spirit. Is 40:6-8, Matt 26:41, John 3:6, etc. When we act on our own is is according to our senses and natural reason without reference to spirit. Prov 3:5-6 the results lead to sorrow.

[RobbyPants]

So... why are we to blame for anything, then? Isn't any bad action we take God not instilling us with enough spirit?

[orangebox21]

Interestingly, Paul does praise God during the bad actions.

My OP wasn't talking about any one specific Christian, X. It's talking about them in aggregate. This seems to be the behavior and beliefs, most broadly speaking.

No Christian perfectly represents Christ.  You will always be able to find ways in which we are not living in accordance to the truth.  Hopefully you are able to see this as our personal imperfection, not as a valid expression of Christ or Christian living.

If the good we do is not of ourselves, but rather Christ living within us, then it logically follows that God should get the glory for the good we do.  And if we bear within ourselves a sinful nature, then we bear the blame for the bad we do.  Special pleading is when an exemption is made without adequate justification.  In this case the exemption: God is responsible when we do good, but not responsible when we do bad, is made because in one instance it is me acting, and in the other instance it is God acting.

So, we're only responsible when we do bad, but we can't do good on our own? Then why are we even held accountable? Why doesn't God compel us to do good better than he does. This setup actually puts all of the blame on God, rendering the free will defense moot.

Do you agree that we are personally responsible for our actions?

I am still curious if you are speaking of libertarian or compatibilist free will.

I am unaware of the difference. I'm responding to apologetics other people use.

We do need to define our terms here to avoid confusion.

Compatibilist free will-  The notion that our choices are compatible with determination.

Libertarian free will-  Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.

From a Christian worldview, determinism is a result of the sovereignty of God, and in a materialistic worldview, determinism is a result of naturalistic processes.

I would like to point out here that our worldviews share the same challenge.  From a libertarian free will perspective, how can God be sovereign?  And in a materialist worldview (which is deterministic in nature), how can libertarian free will even exist?  From a compatibilist perspective, if we are predetermined (by a sovereign God or natural processes) to a certain action, can our free will be held responsible for that action?  And which answer most accurately represents reality?

further compatibilist reading

[Neo-Scholastic]

From a libertarian free will perspective, how can God be sovereign?

He is sovereign in as much as he dispenses justice and rules over all. That is not the same as being controlling and coercive.