I hold a view similar to the Open View of God.

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Rev 20:15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

You might be surprised to know that there is not one single named person in the entire Bible said to have that fate nor is there a single named person even threatened with such a fate.

The devil and his messengers will have that fate, and Jesus openly showed us these bad actors are in mankind, including ourselves in the form of the TEMPTER.

So I for one am thankful for the wrath and damnation scriptures being directed to my own face, knowing to WHOM they are for.

Luke 16:24 "Then he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.'

The rich man had no name for a reason. Because Satan and his own are IN MAN. They are the strangers among us.

Mat 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

Look, everyone sins. And sin is of the devil. We don't need to make excuses for the devil or heap up glory on ourselves for making good decisions knowing we engage the tempter internally. The cover doesn't work.

Mar 9:47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire—

Mat 25:41 "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:

I have no issues with the damnation scriptures, personally applied, knowing that my adversary is assuredly damned.

Man shall live by every Word of God. Not just the Words we prefer. Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4, Deut. 8:3

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

No one is saying we have perfectly righteous deeds. It is not by human perfection that we are saved. But there is a level of righteousness that God accepts. Which, rather than call a "deed" I should call it a desire. A desire to do good, to follow God's ways. For many in attempting to do good still stumble.

IF man is justified by deeds, then any good deed of man will save them, regardless. And I'm probably good with that if it is applied across the board. I doubt there's ever been a person who hasn't done at least 1 good deed in their lives.

John the Apostle speaks to this directly in 1 John 4:7, stating that anyone who loves knows God and is born of God. K

Knowing that all people are God's children, Matt. 23:9, I'd say some of you might be surprised at the full occupancy rate in heaven.

Luke 17:4 And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, 'I repent,' you shall forgive him."

But whether we are saved or not is attributed to our heart's condition, as we see below. Jesus even called it our "deeds"

Honestly, we all have deeds both good and evil. Saying we never have evil deeds is not truthful.

Anytime we are not doing the works of Matt. 25, we are doing "goat works."

To say we have no sin, present tense have, is simply not TRUE. None of us are ever sinless and no amount of deeds is going to make it so. To think that is the case is a religious delusion.

 

[David Lamb]

So I for one am thankful for the wrath and damnation scriptures being directed to my how face, knowing to WHOM they are for.

Sorry, but what is your how face? The face you put on when you wonder how something happens?

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Sorry, but what is your how face? The face you put on when you wonder how something happens?

Misspelled, should be "own"

Typing too fast this a.m.

*corrected* Thank you David!

 

[David Lamb]

Misspelled, should be "own"

Typing too fast this a.m.

*corrected* Thank you David!

Thanks. It makes much more sense now.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Luke 12:47-48 And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

To each of us are committed certain facts; God has given us the ability to reason, if we use our reason to keep on sinning, we will be punished. If we use our reason to make right choices, we will deliver our soul.

Over time, we form a nature. One that either accepts or pushes away God. God is long-suffering, giving us many chances to reform our nature. But ultimately, it is by our deeds that we will be judged.

Rom 2:4-11 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who "WILL RENDER TO EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.

I don't know how that is an answer to what I said. That we have a will is not in question, nor even that we do make choices. I would deny the use of the word, "chances", above, and change it to "opportunities", but, whatever...

You said that God is not subject to mere chance, but it is not mere chance, not like rolling a die, it is more complex than that. Realistically, God is not subject to anything He has made. Do you think He can not constrain man's choices in such a way that He maintains His power.

You ask: "You said that God is not subject to mere chance, but it is not mere chance, not like rolling a die, it is more complex than that. Realistically, God is not subject to anything He has made. Do you think He can not constrain man's choices in such a way that He maintains His power."

Without the question mark at the end of that, it is questionable whether you intended that as a question or as a rhetorical question—a comment.

I suppose you think it a logical countering to what I do say or believe. You would be wrong in that. I don't say he does not constrain man's choices—I don't say that man has not choice, nor that God doesn't, as you put it, constrain them. The implication you don't come out and say—that those choices would be otherwise entirely free of constraint—is a self-contradictory notion. The law of cause-and-effect applies regardless; God knew those choices, and created anyway: Therefore, it is obvious that he intentionally caused them.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What type of God is more of a failure, one who "actively plans", "by His will", to damn mankind because of His wrath? Or one who tried to redeem man, but man fails to respond, contrary to His desire?

Eze 33:11 Say to them: 'As I live,' says the Lord GOD, 'I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?'

Starting, as you seem to think you did, with the fact that a god who fails to complete what he set out to do is not God, it is not a logical result that God must try, but fail, to redeem mankind. That notion denies his omnipotence and omniscience, his aseity, and many other things attributable to God. God did not plan to save all mankind, and fail to do so. He did not even try to save all mankind. It is not logical to exalt man's capabilities to God's level, as you do in matters of mental agility, moral ability, sentient stance, and so on. We are not able to choose in the same way he is.

Second, and as I have said before, it IS logical to see, from several different directions of thought, that we are not able to be entirely free to choose without being caused/compelled to do so. Cause-and-effect is completely pervasive, and ties all fact together precisely as things pan out. We do choose, and that choice is real, and many of my ilk even say we are free to choose within constraints, though I don't say that. But if one's choices are made from a corrupt spirit, that choice is corrupt, no matter what choice is made. For example, if one chooses to "accept Christ", from a corrupt spirit, that choice is corrupt, and is not valid to produce the proposed outcome. Our fickle choices should have shown us that by now.

Third, it is logical to see, also from several different directions of thought, that God did not intend to save all, because there can be no more first causes—God is the only one. Yet you propose free will, where, like Gods, we are free to produce entirely spontaneous choices on our own, apart from prior cause.

Fourth, as I have often shown, SINCE God is First Cause, all things come from him, logically descend from his causing, however you want to put it. All other things besides HIM, are result. So, if God knew precisely, yet caused, then all things were intended precisely as they fall out.

 

[Derf]

Starting, as you seem to think you did, with the fact that a god who fails to complete what he set out to do is not God,

Do you not think God set out to destroy Nineveh in 40 days? If not, why did He tell them He was going to destroy them in 40 days? Does He have to lie to get them to repent?

it is not a logical result that God must try, but fail, to redeem mankind. That notion denies his omnipotence and omniscience, his aseity, and many other things attributable to God. God did not plan to save all mankind, and fail to do so. He did not even try to save all mankind. It is not logical to exalt man's capabilities to God's level, as you do in matters of mental agility, moral ability, sentient stance, and so on. We are not able to choose in the same way he is.

Correct, God did not set out to redeem all mankind, but He is not happy about the result that all mankind will not be saved.

Second, and as I have said before, it IS logical to see, from several different directions of thought, that we are not able to be entirely free to choose without being caused/compelled to do so.

Are you saying God is not capable of making us entirely free to choose without being caused/compelled to do so?

Cause-and-effect is completely pervasive, and ties all fact together precisely as things pan out. We do choose, and that choice is real, and many of my ilk even say we are free to choose within constraints, though I don't say that. But if one's choices are made from a corrupt spirit, that choice is corrupt, no matter what choice is made. For example, if one chooses to "accept Christ", from a corrupt spirit, that choice is corrupt, and is not valid to produce the proposed outcome. Our fickle choices should have shown us that by now.

If one chooses to repent, from a corrupt spirit, is it not still a valid choice to repent, even if the power to accomplish perfectly it is lacking? Were the people of Nineveh then not really repentant, and God's mercy not the right response, since it was a corrupt and faulty repentance?

Third, it is logical to see, also from several different directions of thought, that God did not intend to save all, because there can be no more first causes—God is the only one.

So God can't make a being that can make a free choice. God can't do it at all, since only He is the first cause?

Yet you propose free will, where, like Gods, we are free to produce entirely spontaneous choices on our own, apart from prior cause.

Why not? What prevents God from making a person that can then reject His will? Yet you are saying that no one can reject God's will--it is impossible for God to make such a creature.

Fourth, as I have often shown, SINCE God is First Cause, all things come from him, logically descend from his causing, however you want to put it. All other things besides HIM, are result. So, if God knew precisely, yet caused, then all things were intended precisely as they fall out.

Which means that no one ever has acted against God's will, right? So everyone, for all time, has been completely within the will of God, and therefore God punishes people for doing His will, exactly as He wants them to do.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Do you believe that being born again ("regeneration") is the result of the Spirit of God taking up residence within one (which is what I take you to be referring to as "spiritual baptism"), or is it the cause of the Spirit of God taking up residence.

In other words, do WE generate valid faith, or does God (the Spirit of God) generate it within us, fully valid? (The amount of faith is another question, not related to its validity).

Do you not think God set out to destroy Nineveh in 40 days? If not, why did He tell them He was going to destroy them in 40 days? Does He have to lie to get them to repent?

It was not a lie. It was a threat. And, indeed, if they had not repented, he would have destroyed them. (By the way, if he had not intended that they repent, why would he go to all that trouble to send Jonah in the precise way that he did?

Correct, God did not set out to redeem all mankind, but He is not happy about the result that all mankind will not be saved.

That's a side issue. I'm not saying he's happy that most will perish.

Are you saying God is not capable of making us entirely free to choose without being caused/compelled to do so?

No. I'm saying that it is a logically self-contradictory notion. (Nobody but God is entirely free). So why would he even consider it? It's not that he can't. It's that it is a non-thing.

If one chooses to repent, from a corrupt spirit, is it not still a valid choice to repent, even if the power to accomplish perfectly it is lacking? Were the people of Nineveh then not really repentant, and God's mercy not the right response, since it was a corrupt and faulty repentance?

The story of Nineveh and Jonah is not about salvation, by the way, so it is not the same sort of repentance. I can go to the fridge to get cream cheese for my bagel, go to the living room where my bagel is, and when I open the cream cheese, it has gray hair growing in it. I repent of my course of action. I go back to the kitchen for something else. The people of Nineveh were wicked, God demanded they change their ways or else. This is not repentance concerning their sinfulness. It is simple repentance of what they were doing. Would you claim they loved God after that repentance? It was still corrupt. But, at least, and for a time, they stopped what they were doing.

So God can't make a being that can make a free choice. God can't do it at all, since only He is the first cause?

Define free choice. Uncaused choice? That makes no sense. Only God chooses, uncaused to do so. If you like, we can into the details of that. Can you show me how anything happens uncaused to do so? Only God is uncaused.

Why not? What prevents God from making a person that can then reject His will? Yet you are saying that no one can reject God's will--it is impossible for God to make such a creature.

Does the capability of rejecting God's commands, and even God's offer of forgiveness and salvation, imply free will? Demonstrate to me that there is anything we do entirely spontaneously. For starters: Is there anything we do that we don't most want to do at that instant of decision?

Which means that no one ever has acted against God's will, right? So everyone, for all time, has been completely within the will of God, and therefore God punishes people for doing His will, exactly as He wants them to do.

Here and above, you consider "God's will" as only one thing. The implication is that God fully intended that we all be holy as he is holy; yet, somehow, only Christ Jesus has been able to do that.

The law —all of it God's will—was given to demonstrate our sin and our need for him, because we are unable to obey it perfectly, and so we deserve death. We need his mercy. Even you don't believe that is all that his will is. He also wills for things to happen quite apart from his law. And those things are a little harder to know. So there are at least two things that are called/considered the will of God. The one thing is not the same as the other. If you think God never intended for Lucifer to rebel and Adam to sin, then why did he bother to make us? He made us to be the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, the Children of God, the Dwelling Place of God, his People with Him in a way the angels can never be. And THAT would not happen, but for Redemption.

So everyone has acted against his command (his revealed will), but none of us can ruin his plans (his hidden will). He doesn't fly by the seat of his pants to accomplish some general end. Read the prophets where repeatedly God used foreign kings to punish Israel —even refers to one of them as a tool— and then punishes them for doing so. They were not obeying. They were only accomplishing what God had planned for them to do. Do you think that Satan will not have to pay for what he did to Job? Yet God put him up to it, fully intending that that beautiful book would be read by his people.

 

[Derf]

It was not a lie. It was a threat. And, indeed, if they had not repented, he would have destroyed them. (By the way, if he had not intended that they repent, why would he go to all that trouble to send Jonah in the precise way that he did?

That's a side issue. I'm not saying he's happy that most will perish.

No. I'm saying that it is a logically self-contradictory notion. (Nobody but God is entirely free). So why would he even consider it? It's not that he can't. It's that it is a non-thing.

The story of Nineveh and Jonah is not about salvation, by the way, so it is not the same sort of repentance. I can go to the fridge to get cream cheese for my bagel, go to the living room where my bagel is, and when I open the cream cheese, it has gray hair growing in it. I repent of my course of action. I go back to the kitchen for something else. The people of Nineveh were wicked, God demanded they change their ways or else. This is not repentance concerning their sinfulness. It is simple repentance of what they were doing. Would you claim they loved God after that repentance? It was still corrupt. But, at least, and for a time, they stopped what they were doing.

Define free choice. Uncaused choice? That makes no sense. Only God chooses, uncaused to do so. If you like, we can into the details of that. Can you show me how anything happens uncaused to do so? Only God is uncaused.

Does the capability of rejecting God's commands, and even God's offer of forgiveness and salvation, imply free will? Demonstrate to me that there is anything we do entirely spontaneously. For starters: Is there anything we do that we don't most want to do at that instant of decision?

Here and above, you consider "God's will" as only one thing. The implication is that God fully intended that we all be holy as he is holy; yet, somehow, only Christ Jesus has been able to do that.

Yes, that is true, if you replace "intended" with "desired".

The law —all of it God's will—was given to demonstrate our sin and our need for him

Not to tell us what He wants us to do?

, because we are unable to obey it perfectly, and so we deserve death.

But His law included the steps to take when the laws were disobeyed. How do you obey those parts if you never disobey the other parts? God's law helped people to avoid death.

We need his mercy. Even you don't believe that is all that his will is. He also wills for things to happen quite apart from his law.

Opposite His law? In other words, does God both will that all oeople keep His law and at the same time will that all people break His law? What lawmaker would do that? Maybe you should divide between God's intended will and God's contingent will, like Nineveh.

And those things are a little harder to know. So there are at least two things that are called/considered the will of God. The one thing is not the same as the other. If you think God never intended for Lucifer to rebel and Adam to sin, then why did he bother to make us?

I dont understand the question. Are you saying that we are undesired by God unless Lucifer rebelled and Adam sinned?

He made us to be the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, the Children of God, the Dwelling Place of God, his People with Him in a way the angels can never be. And THAT would not happen, but for Redemption.

Or perfect obedience in the first place. That makes the current scheme contingent.

So everyone has acted against his command (his revealed will), but none of us can ruin his plans (his hidden will).

Are our sins part of His hidden will? Every sin ever committed? If He couldn't make a sinless population from the start, He desires us to sin instead?

He doesn't fly by the seat of his pants to accomplish some general end.

Huh? Is someone suggesting that?

Read the prophets where repeatedly God used foreign kings to punish Israel —even refers to one of them as a tool— and then punishes them for doing so. They were not obeying.

Can't they both obey the command to punish Israel and also disobey commands for the treatment of the people? I don't see why it has to be a dichotomy.

They were only accomplishing what God had planned for them to do.

Plus some extra God didn't want them to do

Do you think that Satan will not have to pay for what he did to Job?

I don't know how God accounts for Satan's individual acts, but he didn't have to argue with God, did he? Are you saying that God wants Satan to kill, steal, and destroy? Why then is God any more moral than Satan?

Yet God put him up to it, fully intending that that beautiful book would be read by his people.

Was that the whole purpose of the episode? Or was God actually working to bring about a better understanding for Job, his wife, his friends?

 

[SuperCow]

Then you are saying that God is not omniscient which also means he is not omnipotent. That is not God. Also, your thinking demonstrates the notion that God is subject to time, and whatever other things you consider 'reality'. In your thinking, God is not the 'inventor' of time and reality.

All things begin with God. Apart from him, there was nothing—no principles, no fact, no reality— until he created. All other things depend on and logically descend from his creating.

What scripture in your mind proves that he is either of those things? FutureAndAHope provided a scripture. Maybe only one, but there are others. In addition to Genesis 6:6, I would also add:

1 Samuel 15:35
Jeremiah 3:6,7

Of course, there are many that support your viewpoint as well:

Isaiah 44:6
Isaiah 48:12
Revelation 1:8
Revelation 21:6
Revelation 22:13

Whether or not God invented time is something neither of us can prove or disprove. Yes, we can infer from creation that God created "our" reality, but there is nothing that tells us what is in God's reality.

Can you prove that man has freewill? It seems to be one of the foundations of your theory.

Can you prove that man does not have free will? Atheists believe that all of reality and our actions is a mere result of billions (or more) of variables that are the almost infinite calculations of every particle in the universe. How would that be any different than having a God that does not give mankind free will? And how do you have free will when God knows what you will do in every second of your life from the time you are created?

If man does not have free will, then all sin and evil (and good as well) is caused by God. That is the logical end result from his creation if God chose to know what our choices would be. Why warn Adam and Eve, if God knew they were going to take the fruit anyway? Why does God question them afterwards? He obviously knew at this point that they took the fruit, but maybe he didn't know if they would have remorse, or blame each other as the text states. Their punishment was only stated after their response, and prophecies in the Bible only began after man sinned.

Why are there so many places in the Bible where Israel, Judah, a specific king or prophet is given a choice? Why is Noah in 2 Peter 2:5 referred to as "a preacher of righteousness"? Why is he preaching at all if God knows already that they will reject him and everyone but Noah's family will die? Why do we as Christians preach, if only certain people are predestined to be called to God anyway?

Much of the Bible makes little sense without free will.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
Can you prove that man has freewill? It seems to be one of the foundations of your theory.

Can you prove that man does not have free will?

Well, yes, I can, if 'free will' goes by the adjective, "uncaused". Nothing happens uncaused, except God. Everything that is —except God— is so because it was caused to become so.

Atheists believe that all of reality and our actions is a mere result of billions (or more) of variables that are the almost infinite calculations of every particle in the universe. How would that be any different than having a God that does not give mankind free will?

If freewill is uncaused, man does not have freewill.

And how do you have free will when God knows what you will do in every second of your life from the time you are created?

So you believe that God is not omniscient, if I follow your reasoning, here.

If man does not have free will, then all sin and evil (and good as well) is caused by God. That is the logical end result from his creation if God chose to know what our choices would be. Why warn Adam and Eve, if God knew they were going to take the fruit anyway?

So that they are without excuse. And so that we would know that they had no excuse.

Why does God question them afterwards? He obviously knew at this point that they took the fruit, but maybe he didn't know if they would have remorse, or blame each other as the text states. Their punishment was only stated after their response, and prophecies in the Bible only began after man sinned.

If God is not omniscient, he is not God.

Why are there so many places in the Bible where Israel, Judah, a specific king or prophet is given a choice? Why is Noah in 2 Peter 2:5 referred to as "a preacher of righteousness"? Why is he preaching at all if God knows already that they will reject him and everyone but Noah's family will die? Why do we as Christians preach, if only certain people are predestined to be called to God anyway?

Why do you think "choice" is synonymous with "free will"? I believe we have choice. In fact, we are commanded to choose, and we can't help but choose all day long. But that doesn't mean our choices are uncaused.

Much of the Bible makes little sense without free will.

None of the Bible makes sense if choice is uncaused.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
He made us to be the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, the Children of God, the Dwelling Place of God, his People with Him in a way the angels can never be. And THAT would not happen, but for Redemption.

Or perfect obedience in the first place. That makes the current scheme contingent.

No. Perfect obedience would not result in those things. They are contingent on redemption which is contingent on the fall —all of which are contingent on God's intention, which WILL be accomplished. Perfect obedience would only result in a continued Eden. Adam and Eve walked and talked with God in the Garden, but they were not the Dwelling Place of God, nor the Bride of Christ.

Are our sins part of His hidden will? Every sin ever committed? If He couldn't make a sinless population from the start, He desires us to sin instead?

Huh? I didn't say he couldn't make a sinless population from the start. But yes, every sin committed was part of his plan to making his particular people, His Dwelling Place, His Children. The Bride of Christ is not a haphazard compilation of members. We are precisely what he intended, in every way, with all of our personalities and faults, to be glorified and made whole. Far more than Adam and Eve. It is for THIS that we are made.

Mark Quayle said:
He doesn't fly by the seat of his pants to accomplish some general end.

Huh? Is someone suggesting that?

That's what 'free will' implies. God reacting and changing his plans according to what we do— it is God deciding AFTER and not BEFORE.

Mark Quayle said:
Read the prophets where repeatedly God used foreign kings to punish Israel —even refers to one of them as a tool— and then punishes them for doing so. They were not obeying.

Can't they both obey the command to punish Israel and also disobey commands for the treatment of the people? I don't see why it has to be a dichotomy.

God didn't command them to punish Israel.

Mark Quayle said:
They were only accomplishing what God had planned for them to do.

Plus some extra God didn't want them to do

I generally use "intend" or "plan" or "decree" —not, "want", in such contexts. "Want" too often brings in extraneous and false notions. God did intend that they do every little thing and every big thing, and that, for HIS purposes. It was their sin, but his plan. Read the account of Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery. Joseph tells his brothers, years later, "You indeed intended it for evil. But God intended it for good."

Mark Quayle said:
Do you think that Satan will not have to pay for what he did to Job?

I don't know how God accounts for Satan's individual acts, but he didn't have to argue with God, did he? Are you saying that God wants Satan to kill, steal, and destroy? Why then is God any more moral than Satan?

It would be more accurate to say what Satan should have (or shouldn't have) done, than what he "had to" do. To say he "had to" rebel or "had to" hurt Job, is too easily taken to mean that he had not choice. Instead, God USED Satan's choices to accomplish God's good ends. God pretty obviously put Satan up to it. After asking Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil?”, do you think God said to himself, "Now, why didn't I keep my mouth shut!" Notice the same scenario when God assigns an evil spirit to deceive Ahab. God left the choice to that demon, but asked who would do it, and how it would be done. That doesn't imply that the demon 'had to', but that the demon was 'sure to' do it.

Your use of "had to" is bringing in human temporal notions. I've heard people say that God "has to" do this or that, or "cannot" do something or other. That is not how God is. Reality comes from God. It does not happen to God. He is subject to nothing but himself. The fact that God is always consistent and faithful is not because he has to act according to his nature. With God, it is more accurate to say that he IS his nature. It is not because it is good and useful that God is good. Good is what it is, because God is good.

So also, then the things that God absolutely does cause. It is all for good, even when it has sin in it. I think you would agree that sin would not be, if God had not created anything. Yet God, being omniscient, knew there would be sin as a result of him creating; yet he intentionally created anyway. Thus we see that God intended, among all the other results of his creating, that there would be sin. We can be confident that he intended it for a good purpose, and we know what that purpose was —redemption, and all that redemption results in.

Mark Quayle said:
Yet God put him up to it, fully intending that that beautiful book would be read by his people.

Was that the whole purpose of the episode? Or was God actually working to bring about a better understanding for Job, his wife, his friends?

No, it wasn't the whole purpose of the episode. But it was a purpose. Nothing can happen that God does not intend to happen. And everything that does happen, regardless of the intent of the person choosing to do it, is for God's good purposes. Satan's rebellion and the fall of mankind in Adam, is for the purpose of Redemption and Salvation and Heaven. Redemption isn't plan B.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, that is true, if you replace "intended" with "desired".

I don't.

Mark Quayle said:
The law —all of it God's will—was given to demonstrate our sin and our need for him

Not to tell us what He wants us to do?

The purpose of the law is at LEAST to tell us what we should do. But rather obviously not only for that purpose. Galatians 3:19-24; Romans 3:20 "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin."

Mark Quayle said:
, because we are unable to obey it perfectly, and so we deserve death.

But His law included the steps to take when the laws were disobeyed. How do you obey those parts if you never disobey the other parts? God's law helped people to avoid death.

That's self-contradictory. You claim that God intended (or, "wanted") us to obey the Law. Good enough—if he also wanted us to obey those parts about what steps to take when the laws were disobeyed, the implication then is that he wanted us to disobey. Do you see how the human notion, 'want', distorts thinking concerning God?

Mark Quayle said:
We need his mercy. Even you don't believe that is all that his will is. He also wills for things to happen quite apart from his law

Opposite His law? In other words, does God both will that all oeople keep His law and at the same time will that all people break His law? What lawmaker would do that? Maybe you should divide between God's intended will and God's contingent will, like Nineveh

No. I was saying that there are many things, facts, events, etc that God intended to exist or to be true, unrelated to the law.

Mark Quayle said:
And those things are a little harder to know. So there are at least two things that are called/considered the will of God. The one thing is not the same as the other. If you think God never intended for Lucifer to rebel and Adam to sin, then why did he bother to make us?

I dont understand the question. Are you saying that we are undesired by God unless Lucifer rebelled and Adam sinned?

No. I'm saying that what God intended, from the beginning, was the People of God, The Bride of Christ, The Dwelling Place of God, and that those things would not be if there had been no Redemption, and that there would be no redemption if there had been no sin.

 

[SuperCow]

Well, yes, I can, if 'free will' goes by the adjective, "uncaused". Nothing happens uncaused, except God. Everything that is —except God— is so because it was caused to become so.

I see an opinion. I do not see any proof. And there's two problems here. First is that just because God caused creation (and everything that goes along with it), that does not mean that he knows everything that will happen. It could mean that, but it could just as easily be that things were created and God let things happen and guided it along the way. Or technically it could even mean that he created things, didn't know what the result would be and changed things as they went. Or it could even mean that he caused the Big Bang, and went off to some other dimension when we didn't live up to our responsibilities.

If freewill is uncaused, man does not have freewill.

This reasoning is entirely backwards. Freewill that is caused is not freewill, and to think that it is creates a paradox.

So you believe that God is not omniscient, if I follow your reasoning, here.

I believe "FutureAndAHope" provided a scripture that implies otherwise, and I provided two others. You have not provided any, from what I can see. All you have provided is opinions about what you think God should be to make sense to you, and what you need to do is provide a scriptural answer as to how an omniscient, omnipotent God can feel regrets in multiple scriptures in the Bible.

So that they are without excuse. And so that we would know that they had no excuse.

Again, this is entirely opposite reasoning to logic. If my actions are "caused", then my excuse is that God made me sin, as I had no choice.

If God is not omniscient, he is not God.

Nonsense. If aliens created us in a lab, they technically would be our creator. If they continued to control us by force, they would technically be our God (or gods). This would be true regardless of our ability to resist or their ultimate abilities as a species.

Why do you think "choice" is synonymous with "free will"? I believe we have choice. In fact, we are commanded to choose, and we can't help but choose all day long. But that doesn't mean our choices are uncaused.

None of the Bible makes sense if choice is uncaused.

That depends on what you call "free will". You could say that slaves do not have free will, but they can choose to defy their overlords and die. But what I am calling free will is the ability to make a choice. If my choice is caused by God, then as you say I have no free will, but that means I am nothing more than a biological robot who is just following its pre-programmed path, and so are the 8 billion other people alive today, along with however many billion who have lived in the past. We might as well all be part of a computer simulation in that case.

Logical rule of thumb:

My choices are caused : Any choice I think I have is an illusion, and I am an automaton.
My choices are my own : I can choose to serve God, or I can choose to reject him, but I might suffer consequences.
God is omniscient : God is all-knowing about the future, and so is unable to create anything that that has real choices, because his act of creating them automatically forces a path that he has pre-conceived. Therefore my choices are caused and I am a biological robot.
God is omnipotent : In this case it is impossible to also be omniscient, because God cannot create a creature with free choice, which then means there is something that is impossible for God to do. But then we already know God isn't omnipotent, because Hebrews 6:18 says "it is impossible for God to lie".

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
Well, yes, I can, if 'free will' goes by the adjective, "uncaused". Nothing happens uncaused, except God. Everything that is —except God— is so because it was caused to become so.

I see an opinion. I do not see any proof. And there's two problems here. First is that just because God caused creation (and everything that goes along with it), that does not mean that he knows everything that will happen. It could mean that, but it could just as easily be that things were created and God let things happen and guided it along the way. Or technically it could even mean that he created things, didn't know what the result would be and changed things as they went. Or it could even mean that he caused the Big Bang, and went off to some other dimension when we didn't live up to our responsibilities.

I agree it is opinion, as is everything philosophy and science uses for proof. It assumes that God is the only uncaused thing. But if you can show me how there is anything else uncaused, be my guest.

Second, as a believer in Scripture, it is my assumption that Scripture is true. And as Scriptures present an omniscient God, then he knows everything. Likewise, good reasoning shows God as the uncaused causer, the 'first cause', and, as I assume, to say that there can be more than one first cause is to contradict the meaning of "first cause".

Mark Quayle said:
If freewill is uncaused, man does not have freewill.

This reasoning is entirely backwards. Freewill that is caused is not freewill, and to think that it is creates a paradox.

No. It is definition. There is nothing uncaused, except first cause. Therefore, if "freewill" is uncaused, there is no such thing in the created being. Your "paradox" assumes freewill is a valid concept. So, again, I say that if freewill is uncaused, man does not have it. Uncaused freewill is not a valid concept, except in God.

Mark Quayle said:
So you believe that God is not omniscient, if I follow your reasoning, here.

I believe "FutureAndAHope" provided a scripture that implies otherwise, and I provided two others. You have not provided any, from what I can see. All you have provided is opinions about what you think God should be to make sense to you, and what you need to do is provide a scriptural answer as to how an omniscient, omnipotent God can feel regrets in multiple scriptures in the Bible.

I'm sorry. I don't follow. "...implies otherwise."? You provided scripture that implies that you do NOT believe that God is not omniscient? Or are you saying that @FutureAndAHope (and you) provided scripture that demonstrates that God is not omniscient? If I remember @FutureAndAHope right, he would take issue with the notion that God is not omniscient.

As for what you ask me to do, (and I could make your point better than you do—God even 'repents of' what he did, and 'changes his mind' about what he was going to do, according to the translations. He also says that 'it never entered my mind that they should do that'.) Several logical rules apply to hermeneutics and produce good exegesis. To take verses out of context, for example, is not a good hermeneutic. And to assume that a modern day reading of the English is all that is necessary for understanding a statement in scripture, is not exegesis. All Scripture agrees with itself. Therefore, the 'whole counsel of God' is to be brought to bear when drawing meaning and doctrine from a verse. If the Bible says, "God is not a man....that he should change his mind." and in another place, "God changed his mind", there is

Mark Quayle said:
So that they are without excuse. And so that we would know that they had no excuse.

Again, this is entirely opposite reasoning to logic. If my actions are "caused", then my excuse is that God made me sin, as I had no choice.

On the contrary. If God caused that I sin, it is by use of my [willed] choices. We know that it is logically self-contradictory to say that God can sin, (because God does nothing against himself, and sin is against God.) Likewise, Scripture says that God tempts nobody. So sin comes, just as James says, from our lusts. Follow that line of causation all the way back. There is God. He does not tempt, and he does not sin. We do. Satan does. Our lusts do. And the whole of creation was caused by God to exist. You can't escape that, except by ignoring it, or by claiming that God is less than omnipotent.

Mark Quayle said:
If God is not omniscient, he is not God.

Nonsense. If aliens created us in a lab, they technically would be our creator. If they continued to control us by force, they would technically be our God (or gods). This would be true regardless of our ability to resist or their ultimate abilities as a species.

Yes, definitely "little 'g'" gods. As the story goes, the scientist argues that he can create life. All he needs, he says, is a spark of electricity and a bit of dirt. And God says, "Nope. Go get your own dirt!" Aliens can't create anything, technically. They would not be our creators; that is just a figure of speech. They are not first causers, and not omnipotent. Not God. I will accept nothing less than The Omnipotent as my God. If you want to discuss something or someone less than omnipotent as God, then we have no common frame of reference. If God created, he is the uncaused causer, and the only one.

Mark Quayle said:
Why do you think "choice" is synonymous with "free will"? I believe we have choice. In fact, we are commanded to choose, and we can't help but choose all day long. But that doesn't mean our choices are uncaused.

None of the Bible makes sense if choice is uncaused

That depends on what you call "free will". You could say that slaves do not have free will, but they can choose to defy their overlords and die. But what I am calling free will is the ability to make a choice. If my choice is caused by God, then as you say I have no free will, but that means I am nothing more than a biological robot who is just following its pre-programmed path, and so are the 8 billion other people alive today, along with however many billion who have lived in the past. We might as well all be part of a computer simulation in that case.

Logical rule of thumb:

My choices are caused : Any choice I think I have is an illusion, and I am an automaton.
My choices are my own : I can choose to serve God, or I can choose to reject him, but I might suffer consequences.
God is omniscient : God is all-knowing about the future, and so is unable to create anything that that has real choices, because his act of creating them automatically forces a path that he has pre-conceived. Therefore my choices are caused and I am a biological robot.
God is omnipotent : In this case it is impossible to also be omniscient, because God cannot create a creature with free choice, which then means there is something that is impossible for God to do. But then we already know God isn't omnipotent, because Hebrews 6:18 says "it is impossible for God to lie"

Please, for the sake of brevity, show that your axiomatic statements are actually valid. When I used as axiomatic, "Nothing happens uncaused, except God." I assume it is valid, but reason (and not just my own) validates it. If there is more than one uncaused causer, then neither are uncaused, but are subject to facts they did not make, such as the fact that there are two. It is self-contradictory, then, to say that there can be more than one uncaused causer.

If your existence is caused, your choices are caused. Your choices are your own, and are caused. You have a will. A robot does not. Your will is to do according to your inclinations. You will always choose to do what you most want to do at that instant of choosing. Why do you have that inclination? Why do you want to choose what you choose? These things don't happen in a vacuum. You could not have chosen anything if you had not woken up to see the options. What caused you to wake up? How do you have any thoughts? Are these things entirely spontaneous? No, they are causes of effects and they in turn are effects of earlier causes. Your options are not illusions, but it will only ever be possible to choose what you end up choosing. And you don't know which one that is until you choose. Can you demonstrate that all options on the table are possible to choose? It is human to see them that way, but in the end, only the one is ever chosen, as history consistently demonstrates. And the whole scenario is God's. It doesn't happen by itself, but is established by God, in whom we live and breath and have our existence.

You attempt to show a logical self-contradiction with your syllogism built on the premise "God cannot create a creature with free choice". The premise is faulty—the statement is bogus. It is not that God cannot do it, but that the whole notion is logically self-contradictory. Would you say that the statement, "God cannot create a rock too big for him to pick up." is a valid statement? It is utter foolishness. Why would God even consider such a thing? He would not. It is not even a thing, but oxymoronic self-contradiction.

Hebrews 6:18 (which, by the way, you took out of context) is talking about the fact that it is impossible that God would lie. It is a logical self-contradiction to suppose that God would lie. He is not a man, that he should lie. (Numbers 23:19 Just in case you decide to ignore my scriptural references because I didn't include the address and zip code.

 

[SuperCow]

Mark Quayle said:
Well, yes, I can, if 'free will' goes by the adjective, "uncaused". Nothing happens uncaused, except God. Everything that is —except God— is so because it was caused to become so.

I agree it is opinion, as is everything philosophy and science uses for proof. It assumes that God is the only uncaused thing. But if you can show me how there is anything else uncaused, be my guest.

Second, as a believer in Scripture, it is my assumption that Scripture is true. And as Scriptures present an omniscient God, then he knows everything. Likewise, good reasoning shows God as the uncaused causer, the 'first cause', and, as I assume, to say that there can be more than one first cause is to contradict the meaning of "first cause".

I am not disputing that within our reality, God is the cause of everything. What I am saying is that if God caused all, then having omniscience automatically precludes true choice for anything that is caused, human or otherwise. My choice is an illusion. God created me a certain way, in an environment unique to me, knowing how I would respond and every choice that I would ever make. Therefore, with that logic, Adam and Eve had no choice but to sin; the serpent had no choice but to deceive, and man had no choice but to (for the most part) reject God, because of how they were created, how they were taught, and their life experiences.

I'm sorry. I don't follow. "...implies otherwise."? You provided scripture that implies that you do NOT believe that God is not omniscient? Or are you saying that @FutureAndAHope (and you) provided scripture that demonstrates that God is not omniscient? If I remember @FutureAndAHope right, he would take issue with the notion that God is not omniscient.

As for what you ask me to do, (and I could make your point better than you do—God even 'repents of' what he did, and 'changes his mind' about what he was going to do, according to the translations. He also says that 'it never entered my mind that they should do that'.) Several logical rules apply to hermeneutics and produce good exegesis. To take verses out of context, for example, is not a good hermeneutic. And to assume that a modern day reading of the English is all that is necessary for understanding a statement in scripture, is not exegesis. All Scripture agrees with itself. Therefore, the 'whole counsel of God' is to be brought to bear when drawing meaning and doctrine from a verse. If the Bible says, "God is not a man....that he should change his mind." and in another place, "God changed his mind", there is

The "impossible to lie" quote was a hyperbole to show how the raw meaning of the word itself (omnipotence or omniscience) is technically an oxymoron.

As far as translated scriptures go, certain things obviously need to be interpreted, otherwise raw readings look like contradictions.

Genesis 6:6,7 & 1 Samuel 15:11,35 - God regrets his own actions. But in the same chapter in Samuel (1 Samuel 15:29) which you quoted, God is not a man that he should have regret. (ESV) or that he should repent (KJV) or change his mind (NIV). So obviously there is some kind of interpretation or translation issue. But the fact remains that God anointed three different individuals to be king over Israel, and only one remained faithful. (Saul & David through Samuel, and Jeroboam through Ahijah) Not a great record if you are omniscient or know ahead of time what your chosen appointees will do. In fact, Jeroboam almost immediately rebelled and not a single king of Israel from that point were faithful. (except partially Jehu)

I'm not suggesting that God doesn't know or see or have some kind of supernatural ability to see the future. I just don't follow the logic that God doesn't have a choice to decide what to foresee, in order to prevent his creation from being a mere simulation.

Mark Quayle said:
So that they are without excuse. And so that we would know that they had no excuse.

On the contrary. If God caused that I sin, it is by use of my [willed] choices. We know that it is logically self-contradictory to say that God can sin, (because God does nothing against himself, and sin is against God.) Likewise, Scripture says that God tempts nobody. So sin comes, just as James says, from our lusts. Follow that line of causation all the way back. There is God. He does not tempt, and he does not sin. We do. Satan does. Our lusts do. And the whole of creation was caused by God to exist. You can't escape that, except by ignoring it, or by claiming that God is less than omnipotent.

If God caused everything and knows everything, then I have no will, period. If it is self-contradictory to say that God can sin (which I agree with), then he can't possibly have pre-conceived that Adam and Eve and the serpent and Satan would sin, because then, as you say, God would be sinning against himself through Adam and Eve, and is furthermore responsible for everything Satan would do.

If your existence is caused, your choices are caused. Your choices are your own, and are caused.

This sentence is self-contradictory. Your choices are not your own if they are caused by someone else.

You have a will. A robot does not. Your will is to do according to your inclinations. You will always choose to do what you most want to do at that instant of choosing. Why do you have that inclination? Why do you want to choose what you choose? These things don't happen in a vacuum. You could not have chosen anything if you had not woken up to see the options. What caused you to wake up? How do you have any thoughts? Are these things entirely spontaneous? No, they are causes of effects and they in turn are effects of earlier causes. Your options are not illusions, but it will only ever be possible to choose what you end up choosing. And you don't know which one that is until you choose. Can you demonstrate that all options on the table are possible to choose? It is human to see them that way, but in the end, only the one is ever chosen, as history consistently demonstrates. And the whole scenario is God's. It doesn't happen by itself, but is established by God, in whom we live and breath and have our existence.

You are missing the point. Whatever reason I may have to choose what I have chosen to do is caused by God, as you say, whether that is by influencing my brain waves now, or by just allowing it to develop through history from some initial quantum wave of creation. The sticking point is whether at the point of creation God already knew that I would exist and what I would do thousands or billions of years later. (Depending on whether you are a young earth or old earth creationist) And omniscience means God did know, and therefore my choices are not mine after all.

You attempt to show a logical self-contradiction with your syllogism built on the premise "God cannot create a creature with free choice". The premise is faulty—the statement is bogus. It is not that God cannot do it, but that the whole notion is logically self-contradictory. Would you say that the statement, "God cannot create a rock too big for him to pick up." is a valid statement? It is utter foolishness. Why would God even consider such a thing? He would not. It is not even a thing, but oxymoronic self-contradiction.

But I didn't say that or believe that. You don't maybe see it that way, but that is your position. I believe that God can create a creature with free choice, that we all have free choice, and God wants us to have free choice. (the word choice here being synonymous with will) I also believe that despite our free choice, prophecies can still exist, because despite what we do in our lives, it will not affect prophecy or God's will, so peering into our choices is not relevant. And if our actions did or was going to affect God's will, then God would intervene as he did in so many parts of the Bible.

Furthermore, God taking an initiative to help a single individual in distress who prays for help will also not generally affect prophecy. So individually God can guide us, and on a macro scale he can fulfill his prophecies without contradiction.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I am not disputing that within our reality, God is the cause of everything. What I am saying is that if God caused all, then having omniscience automatically precludes true choice for anything that is caused, human or otherwise. My choice is an illusion. God created me a certain way, in an environment unique to me, knowing how I would respond and every choice that I would ever make. Therefore, with that logic, Adam and Eve had no choice but to sin; the serpent had no choice but to deceive, and man had no choice but to (for the most part) reject God, because of how they were created, how they were taught, and their life experiences.



The "impossible to lie" quote was a hyperbole to show how the raw meaning of the word itself (omnipotence or omniscience) is technically an oxymoron.

As far as translated scriptures go, certain things obviously need to be interpreted, otherwise raw readings look like contradictions.

Genesis 6:6,7 & 1 Samuel 15:11,35 - God regrets his own actions. But in the same chapter in Samuel (1 Samuel 15:29) which you quoted, God is not a man that he should have regret. (ESV) or that he should repent (KJV) or change his mind (NIV). So obviously there is some kind of interpretation or translation issue. But the fact remains that God anointed three different individuals to be king over Israel, and only one remained faithful. (Saul & David through Samuel, and Jeroboam through Ahijah) Not a great record if you are omniscient or know ahead of time what your chosen appointees will do. In fact, Jeroboam almost immediately rebelled and not a single king of Israel from that point were faithful. (except partially Jehu)

I'm not suggesting that God doesn't know or see or have some kind of supernatural ability to see the future. I just don't follow the logic that God doesn't have a choice to decide what to foresee, in order to prevent his creation from being a mere simulation.



If God caused everything and knows everything, then I have no will, period. If it is self-contradictory to say that God can sin (which I agree with), then he can't possibly have pre-conceived that Adam and Eve and the serpent and Satan would sin, because then, as you say, God would be sinning against himself through Adam and Eve, and is furthermore responsible for everything Satan would do.



This sentence is self-contradictory. Your choices are not your own if they are caused by someone else.



You are missing the point. Whatever reason I may have to choose what I have chosen to do is caused by God, as you say, whether that is by influencing my brain waves now, or by just allowing it to develop through history from some initial quantum wave of creation. The sticking point is whether at the point of creation God already knew that I would exist and what I would do thousands or billions of years later. (Depending on whether you are a young earth or old earth creationist) And omniscience means God did know, and therefore my choices are not mine after all.



But I didn't say that or believe that. You don't maybe see it that way, but that is your position. I believe that God can create a creature with free choice, that we all have free choice, and God wants us to have free choice. (the word choice here being synonymous with will) I also believe that despite our free choice, prophecies can still exist, because despite what we do in our lives, it will not affect prophecy or God's will, so peering into our choices is not relevant. And if our actions did or was going to affect God's will, then God would intervene as he did in so many parts of the Bible.

Furthermore, God taking an initiative to help a single individual in distress who prays for help will also not generally affect prophecy. So individually God can guide us, and on a macro scale he can fulfill his prophecies without contradiction.

It's going to take too long to continue to debate each point if in the end all we do is disagree. Can you please explain how it is possible for anything (besides God himself) to happen that is not caused to happen? You keep coming up with this idea that if I am caused to do something that I could not have chosen it. I'm saying that I could not have chosen without being caused to choose. Choices don't happen in a vacuum. You wanted what you chose. You wanted what you chose because something —myriad causes, actually— resulted in you wanting what you wanted. You didn't invent fact on your own.

What's curious to me is that, given a different context, many who argue for freewill are more than happy with the notion of 'chains-of-causation'. But as soon as we say that God is at the beginning of all the chains, all the sudden we get cries of "foul"! Why? Really, why? You can't tell me the reasons why you want what you want. You may tell me a reason, but when I ask for the explanation for what caused that reason, you have to come up with something else, and so on. You won't admit to God being at the head of all causation. You want something to happen out of thin air, which is, sorry, illogical. Nothing comes from nothing.


I just read your post again. If I am misrepresenting you and you do agree that God is omniscient and omnipotent, say so. Your conclusion makes sense, if you agree with that: Free will, (as defined by the notion that it is uncaused), is a fiction.

 

[SuperCow]

It's going to take too long to continue to debate each point if in the end all we do is disagree. Can you please explain how it is possible for anything (besides God himself) to happen that is not caused to happen?

We either disagree or do not understand each other. The debate is to find out which it is, or to help lurkers see both sides and understand the implications for themselves.

As to your question, I will provide a simple example from a human frame of reference, as we can argue all day about God's frame of reference, but any rational person should realize that we have no idea about what goes on there, but philosophically, the implications are the same.

Let's theorize that there is somehow a scientist who is perfect, mistake-free, and somehow can understand all of the variables that go into a particular experiment like a controlled energy blast that ignites in a vacuum when he pushes a big red button. He can set up his experiment in one of two ways:

1.) He meticulously works out all the variables ahead of time so that when he pushes that button, he knows where every particle will go, how they will affect each other and everything goes as planned. Nothing new is learned or particularly interesting to the scientist as he knew what was going to happen all along.

2.) He sets up the same experiment, but in this variation, he decides to not calculate every particle but allows them to interact with each other on their own. He still sets up constraints so that they will not leave the vacuum or be in a position to destroy the experiment. Still many different things can happen, and the result is far more satisfying.

You could call it omniscience by default vs omniscience by choice.

You could relate Satan to a rogue jealous scientist who decides to alter the development of two of the particles, but I think this story would get too long and convoluted if I worked out analogies for everything in Genesis.

You keep coming up with this idea that if I am caused to do something that I could not have chosen it. I'm saying that I could not have chosen without being caused to choose.

I really don't see the difference between the two sentences. I agree with both of them. External causation means I am not making the choice.

Choices don't happen in a vacuum. You wanted what you chose. You wanted what you chose because something —myriad causes, actually— resulted in you wanting what you wanted. You didn't invent fact on your own.

You are correct from a logical standpoint, but that is irrelevant. The question is whether God already knows my future choices, thereby making my choice moot. Assuming that we both agree that the world contains a lot of evil people, then it's not just a case of God allowing evil to happen. It's a case of God creating evil in its entirety, a concept that I reject.

What's curious to me is that, given a different context, many who argue for freewill are more than happy with the notion of 'chains-of-causation'. But as soon as we say that God is at the beginning of all the chains, all the sudden we get cries of "foul"! Why? Really, why? You can't tell me the reasons why you want what you want. You may tell me a reason, but when I ask for the explanation for what caused that reason, you have to come up with something else, and so on. You won't admit to God being at the head of all causation. You want something to happen out of thin air, which is, sorry, illogical. Nothing comes from nothing.

I don't have a problem with God being at the beginning of all causation. I have a problem with a concept whose logical end result is that God is responsible for man's fall from grace, not man.

I just read your post again. If I am misrepresenting you and you do agree that God is omniscient and omnipotent, say so. Your conclusion makes sense, if you agree with that: Free will, (as defined by the notion that it is uncaused), is a fiction.

I think we have no way of knowing what reality is for God. I think that omnipotence relative to humanity tells me nothing about the environment in the spiritual world. And I think omniscience by default logically precludes God's freedom and sets up all sorts of paradoxes that cannot be resolved.

God sees A, but wants B, and so intervenes and changes the result to B, but then A never occurred, so God shouldn't have been able to see A as a future, because there was no future A.

And that was a ridiculously simplistic example.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We either disagree or do not understand each other. The debate is to find out which it is, or to help lurkers see both sides and understand the implications for themselves.

As to your question, I will provide a simple example from a human frame of reference, as we can argue all day about God's frame of reference, but any rational person should realize that we have no idea about what goes on there, but philosophically, the implications are the same.

Let's theorize that there is somehow a scientist who is perfect, mistake-free, and somehow can understand all of the variables that go into a particular experiment like a controlled energy blast that ignites in a vacuum when he pushes a big red button. He can set up his experiment in one of two ways:

1.) He meticulously works out all the variables ahead of time so that when he pushes that button, he knows where every particle will go, how they will affect each other and everything goes as planned. Nothing new is learned or particularly interesting to the scientist as he knew what was going to happen all along.

2.) He sets up the same experiment, but in this variation, he decides to not calculate every particle but allows them to interact with each other on their own. He still sets up constraints so that they will not leave the vacuum or be in a position to destroy the experiment. Still many different things can happen, and the result is far more satisfying.

You could call it omniscience by default vs omniscience by choice.

You could relate Satan to a rogue jealous scientist who decides to alter the development of two of the particles, but I think this story would get too long and convoluted if I worked out analogies for everything in Genesis.



I really don't see the difference between the two sentences. I agree with both of them. External causation means I am not making the choice.



You are correct from a logical standpoint, but that is irrelevant. The question is whether God already knows my future choices, thereby making my choice moot. Assuming that we both agree that the world contains a lot of evil people, then it's not just a case of God allowing evil to happen. It's a case of God creating evil in its entirety, a concept that I reject.



I don't have a problem with God being at the beginning of all causation. I have a problem with a concept whose logical end result is that God is responsible for man's fall from grace, not man.



I think we have no way of knowing what reality is for God. I think that omnipotence relative to humanity tells me nothing about the environment in the spiritual world. And I think omniscience by default logically precludes God's freedom and sets up all sorts of paradoxes that cannot be resolved.

God sees A, but wants B, and so intervenes and changes the result to B, but then A never occurred, so God shouldn't have been able to see A as a future, because there was no future A.

And that was a ridiculously simplistic example.

I'll highlight this part of what you say, because it is representative of what we disagree on:

God sees A, but wants B, and so intervenes and changes the result to B, but then A never occurred, so God shouldn't have been able to see A as a future, because there was no future A.​

And that was a ridiculously simplistic example​

Right from the get-go you step out of fact into supposition. God does not simply "see A but want B". That misrepresents what God is doing. It represents the facet WE see, by virtue of a general knowledge we have of him and his nature, and by comparison to his stated commands. While we indeed (as you said) have no way of knowing what reality is for God, we can know some things, such as the fact that it is not how we see it.

It would be useful to do a good study on the theological and philosophical Attributes of God of Aseity, Simplicity and Immanence. Consider the notion, for example, that for God to think is to do, as opposed to the human notions of God considering this or that possibility. If what is possible is exactly all he does, and there is no other fact, then "what would be [otherwise] 'possible' is only by our lack of knowledge". As RC Sproul quoted, "Chance is only a substitute for, 'I don't know.'" ALL FACT DEPENDS ON GOD.

God sees A because he caused A. "There is no plan B." That B goes against his command has to do with what SHOULD HAVE happened. Don't confuse his command with his plan ( =the theological term, 'his decree').

Disclaimer concerning the following statements: My representation of how you see things is drawn on what I hear you saying, and admittedly may be off somewhat:

You assume that (apparently) God began "fact" 'rolling', but then left it to do as it will. Not so. He is the very "in whom we live and move and have our being". Existence itself is by God's upholding, maintaining. "FACT" is God's doing.​

​

You say, "God intervenes and changes the result". Not so. The result was what God saw and accomplished from the beginning. Nothing was changed. There is indeed, "should have, but didn't" [or did] but no "would have", except for our guesses concerning contingent causation and God's plain statements as to what would have happened, but didn't —neither of which represent possibility, but only as to describe what should have happened vs the results of what was chosen.​