"Best" of all possible worlds?

[spauline]

Shouldn’t God create and guide human history in such a manner as to bring about, in the end, the greatest possible spiritual good in human history?

Given an initial fall, this perhaps necessarily LIMITS what God would do in Salvation History, does it not?

 

[ateista]

Shouldn’t God create and guide human history in such a manner as to bring about, in the end, the greatest possible spiritual good in human history?

Given an initial fall, this perhaps necessarily LIMITS what God would do in Salvation History, does it not?

Well, I would not know about “spiritual” goods, but as far as mundane, temporal goods go, this world leaves a lot to be desired. (Maybe man does not live by bread alone, but to have our daily bread sure would go a long way to help survival.)

 

[spauline]

Well, I would not know about “spiritual” goods, but as far as mundane, temporal goods go, this world leaves a lot to be desired. (Maybe man does not live by bread alone, but to have our daily bread sure would go a long way to help survival.)

well, the mystery of human suffering is already [partially] solved by the Passion: the just who endure suffering that cannot be helped can unite their sufferings with Christ and merit graces to save others, so that no suffering need be wasted. Suffering enables the human person to love God and creatures even more than if there were no moral or physical evil: by suffering in love to attain the redemption of others.

there is perhaps nothing more beautiful than a martyr offering their pain for the redemption of their persecutors. But such love would never be possible if we had never fallen.

I’m talking more about the stages of salvation history: Because the fallen nature must continually drag man into the predominance of darkness, it limits the possible ways God can respond to the successive darknesses so as to, in the end, enable the maximum number of creatures to attain salvation.

If that makes sense?

 

[spauline]

IOW, i’m saying this: GIVEN an initial fall of man, God’s options of guiding human history toward the Messiah and beyond are limited by the very nature of the fallen nature, so that, for example, we MUST believe the OT history was the BEST way for God to guide history toward the Coming of Messiah, as opposed to all possible trajectories of history that could lead to Messiah.

For example, like this:

Obviously there were stages of salvation history that led to the cross.

The Flood, Abraham, the Exodus, the Prophets, the Exile, etc.

Humanity had to be prepared to accept the Cross when it came.

If all that was needed was Christ, and no preparation for His Coming, why didn’t Jesus come in Noah’s day?

 

[spauline]

Let me clarify what I am getting at:

In brief, it is this: there is only SO MUCH that God can do with the fallen nature in human history (i.e., spiritual redemption), before a subsequent manifestation of the fallen nature is incurable.

IOW,…

I would say God IS unlimited by nothing outside of Himself. However, given that God RESPECTS the free will of creatures, especially in this world, and SINCE the fallen nature, according to St. Paul (in 2 Thess. 2), can only be “restrained” so far before it becomes incurable, it necessarily limits, for one, His responses to the stages of the fallen nature, and secondly, how much spiritual good He can bring, DESPITE the fallen nature that will eventually prevail at the end of the world.

 

[Contarini]

Shouldn’t God create and guide human history in such a manner as to bring about, in the end, the greatest possible spiritual good in human history?

Given an initial fall, this perhaps necessarily LIMITS what God would do in Salvation History, does it not?

I’m not convinced that the “best of all possible worlds” is possible!

God is infinite in His creative power. Therefore, whatever world He created, He could have created a better one. There is always an infinite gap between what God and His creation.

The “best of all possible worlds” idea is an Enlightenment myth. (I actually think Calvin bears some responsibility, but I have yet to persuade many people of this!)

Edwin

 

[spauline]

I’m not convinced that the “best of all possible worlds” is possible!

God is infinite in His creative power. Therefore, whatever world He created, He could have created a better one. There is always an infinite gap between what God and His creation.

The “best of all possible worlds” idea is an Enlightenment myth. (I actually think Calvin bears some responsibility, but I have yet to persuade many people of this!)

Edwin

well, now, I think I agree in a certain sense. of course, a better world is always possible, but finitely good. I think you misunderstand me. I do not mean a “better” world in terms of materialistic progress. Not at all.

I am rather dealing with the question, can God bring about an age in which the near whole of the Gentiles embrace the gospel of the Catholic Church? Which is related to, can God reunite Christians?

IOW, I’m asking, what will be the degree of the fullness of the Gentiles?

 

[cpayne]

I don’t think anyone at this point could answer the questions as you have phrased them. In some respects, this is a matter of faith in God’s providence.

I like the way someone (Peter Kreeft, I think) put it: This world is not the best of all possible worlds, but this world can be seen as the best WAY to the best of all possible worlds.

Such a vision of the current world involves faith.

In answer to your more specific later question, I personally think, based on my reading of scripture, that in human history eventually the majority of the world will become Christian. We are already seeing some rather amazing mass conversions (in China and Africa, for example).

 

[JamesD]

Let’s try this on for size? Sorry but rambling is all I got.

Perhaps the best possible world is heaven. Or, maybe we could accept that heaven is better than our world?
Now, there are angels who have rejected heaven.
So, the best world we know of had some reject it. That doesn’t mean that heaven isn’t perfect but it means that some angels didn’t think it was.
If the best possible world is one with the greatest number or greatest percentage of creatures loving God, then it would seem that Heaven (if measured only by numbers) may not be so great.
Now if free will is a great good, perhaps greater than numbers?, then, there must be some who reject God. If not a single creature would decide against God, could we say that free will did not actually exist?
So if there must be actual rejection for free will to actually exist, then there will be detriments to the world. Some people suffer because of them and it would seem from the gospels that the actions of rejecters can contribute to the fall of others.
I don’t know, but I have concluded that this is not the best world for each and every one of us. But, if we include heaven and this world together, are we not promissed that things will work out BEST for all of those of us who Love God?