Do “natural consequences” infer pantheism?

jpbrooke

Hello all! :)

I'm new to this site, but think so far it is pretty good. I like being challenged in what I think, and so feel this site will be good for me.

I do have a question.

It seems to me that the big dispute between God and Satan has been over/about the law--at least if one believes EGWhite, anyway.
The argument goes that Satan says no law is needed (because it is arbitrary, which implies that there is an equally good method of doing things), but God contends that HIS particular law (set of principles) is necessary. Obviously, looking at this world, laws are necessary because humanity can't 'do good' on its own. OK, saying all this, if God says a law is necessary, and Satan says God's laws are arbitrary, why did God make the law in the first place, if there weren't 'natural consequences'?
you ask, What does that have to do with Pantheism?
Well, if God told Adam and Eve that they would surely die if they ate of the tree, than if there weren't some 'natural consequences', than God would be arbitrary in making that law......so, either there are 'natural consequences' for disobedience to God's laws, or God's laws are arbitrary, and therefore unjust (Satan's contention)........
Maxwell saying that natural consequences occur, as a reason for death, would then be supporting God's contention--that His laws aren't arbitrary after all....
If Maxwell is then supporting God, is he then being pantheistic in his contention for these natural consequences?

I sure hope what I wrote wasn't too confusing, but appreciate any feedback

Sincerely,

JB

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:23 am Post subject:

Yes JB. That is confusing. I will counter with the following questions to unravel yours:

Is God above nature? If God can prevent the natural consequences of sin from working, why doesn’t He? If the natural consequences of sin didn’t work, would God be obligated to impose punishment for sin? Would it be the exact same punishment?

If you’re wondering why I moved your post here from Mount Carmel, I don’t mind explaining. Click here. All the High Mountain forums are for advancing respectable doctrines and I believe you’re promoting omega pantheism. If I’m in error about this, adjustments can be made later.

jpbrooke · Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2002 10:58 pm Post subject:

Yes, I believe God is above nature....He holds everything in His hands.....

jpbrooke · Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2002 11:06 pm Post subject:

jpbrooke · Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2002 11:19 pm Post subject:

Oftentimes we can learn lessons from nature......I think there is a lesson about electricity which might be applicable to this discussion.

Alternating current follows a sine-wave form. Whenever two currents are 'in phase', they have a tendency to build, or get stronger. Whenever they are 'out of phase' they tend to destructively interfere with each other.

Now, taking this analogy and applying it to God and sin:

If god, who is everywhere, and is perfect, has one form of energy, and evil is out of phase with that energy, it would seem likely that without any intervention, there would be a catastrophic destruction of the environment which is 'out of phase' with the harmony of God. The question one must ask is, "Is that (the destruction) natural consequences' or 'an act of God'?

Getting to my previous point about God and His law.....satan said it was arbitrary. This means that in order for any consequences to occur, God would have to impose them. God said His laws were not arbitrary, which would mean that there is something about them intrinsically that makes them good and valuable.

The only way I can rationalize this is by saying that in order for God's contention to be correct, there MUST be some sort of natural consequences to disobedience. If not, then they are arbitrary, implying satan was correct after all (which we know is NOT true).

any ideas on this? is it any clearer what I'm trying to say?

BTW...I don't have any agenda here.......and I'm not trying to be contrarian either.......just thought I should say that......

jpbrooke

This is an e-mail I sent Eugene earlier

nicsamojluk · follows A. G. Maxwell Joined: 15 Oct 2002 Posts: 21

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2002 9:07 am Post subject:

jpbrooke · Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2002 11:05 am Post subject:

You speak of natural consequences but you haven’t defined the term carefully. Please specify the kind of natural consequences you are referring to. Is it deistic, pantheistic or something else?

hmmm....not sure exactly how to define that term.....it's just that God is above all, and sets everything in motion. Something that is 'natural' obeys laws in harmony with God.
God has always been, and a person could ask, 'is He God, because His laws are so good, or are His laws good because He is God'? (or does it matter).
Defining what 'Natural' is, is akin to asking the same type of question, or asking which came first, 'the chicken, or the egg'.? I don't have an answer for that.
All I CAN say is that God is supreme, and that He spread the heavens with word of His mouth. He is above all, and through Him all things have their existance. I know His ways are everlasting, and have their foundation in eternity. Any way of doing things other than God's,is wrong==and it's not 'just because He said it was', but rather because there is NO BETTER WAY, or other right way that is right. Satan disputed this, and satan is being proved a liar.

I know this doesn't answer your question, but it's the best I can do right now.

(as an aside, you spoke at one point in time about an arrow being drawn back...was natural law the cause of the persons death, or was the person pulling the string the cause of the death?.......I think the person pulling the string back was the cause, and I think God will 'pull' that string one day.....but the question goes deeper than this. If God physically could say that the string need not be pulled (but chooses not to), than He is unjust and His laws are arbitrary. However, if there is something about His laws that DEMAND the string be pulled, than there is an intrinsic fact about those laws which make them superior to any other methods of doing things. I think the latter is true, even if I don't know what that reason is. It is because of this that I think 'natural consequences' are difficult to define and separate from 'divine retribution' -- they are very closely interwoven with each other)

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2002 3:09 pm Post subject:

Jpbrooke,

Deism is the belief that God created the universe and all natural law and then left it to let it run by itself. A deistic view of natural consequences is simply that God created nature to automatically zap sinners with a lightning bolt, a disease or whatever, to destroy the root cause of sin.

A pantheistic view of natural consequences is when the force of natural consequences is deified as a god, praised or thought of as much stronger than ordinary, deistic natural consequences.

With these two definitions in mind, I’d like to know if your view is deistic or pantheistic. Maxwell’s view is clearly pantheistic. Be careful. There’s not much difference between the two views.

Whenever I hear Seventh-day Adventists praising natural consequences and giving IT preeminence, I get nervous. I’m absolutely certain that this is the dreaded omega of deadly heresies that Ellen G. White warned us about in her writings.

jpbrooke · Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2002 3:59 pm Post subject:

I really don't think I'm deistic or pantheistic. Both these views remove God from His rightful place as the present Ruler of all. The old song "He's got the whole world in His hands" still applies as surely today as it did yesterday and will tomorrow. I believe God is very much involved in the affairs of mankind. However, He is the God of nature too, and I can't forget that.

Just so everyone knows, the whole idea of natural consequences vs divine retribution isn't really that big a deal to me--even if there are some aspects of it that I may not fully understand. The only part that really makes any difference to me at all is the aspect that pertains to whether God is arbitrary or not....Some people don't have a problem with God being arbitrary, and use the Sabbath as an example of being arbitrary, and saying God could have chosen any other day........Well, Yes, God could have chosen any other day to rest on, but he couldn't have given any other day as the day he rested on after he rested on the seventh day....that seems a bit cyclical, but he gave the reason for observing the Sabbath that it was the day He rested, so it is the day we should rest (thus the reason, and lack of arbitrariness). Also, it was to remember Him by, as the One who actually did the work of creation==> memorial. From all that, the issue shifts from arbitrariness, to loyalty/obedience. Other examples of this principle of loyalty/obedience can be seen in the first sin at the 'tree of knowledge', the sacrifice of cain that was refused (he brought first-fruits instead of the prescribed offering), the sacrifice of Saul that was refused (didn't wait for Nathan the prophet as instructed), etc., etc. The whole idea with all these examples was, were they going to obey and prove their loyalty? or were they going to do their own thing? Obedience proved loyalty, while disobedience showed they thought God was arbitrary in His requirements, and that they thought it really didn't matter (they thought any way was just as good as God's way==>contention of satan from the beginning).
From all this, I have to re-iterate what I said before, that it appears there MUST have been some 'natural consequences' for disobedience, or the law would have some equally valid counterpart (which never became law because God didn't choose to make it law), and thus justify satan's accusations against God, that He was arbitrary==>unjust. We know these accusations are false, as can be seen from the results of the wickedness in this world (which satan rules). From that fact, we can conclude God's laws are NOT arbitrary/unjust, but are for the good of all His creatures. This fact would (it seems to me) further imply natural consequences to disobedience (whatever those natural consequences are). It doesn't, however, remove God from the picture as one standing to the side after creating things, nor does it say that God is everywhere, in the very actions that causes the 'natural consequences'==>pantheism.
Anyway, getting caught up over a detail here or there seems pretty inconsequential to me, so I don't want to do it. If it seems that' been what I've done, I apologize.