This is where it gets interesting. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer, and Biblical exegesis is certainly useful. However, those can also be used to dissemble, hide, and reject things out of hand. There is no way to prove when that line has been crossed, but sometimes it starts to feel that way. I hope we don't go there, but we seem to be getting close.
I know this thread began because of issues you have with Lutheran views on predestination, but I got the impression it went deeper than that. It seemed you were uncomfortable with how you were being led to issues of the source of evil, people's lack of faith, a lack of witness in some places, and God's responsibility for those things. If that's not true - if you're fine with ascribing God responsibility for evil, etc. ... or if you're satisfied you can answer why he's not responsible - then maybe we're ready to draw this to a close. I would think you're wrong, but I would also realize I probably can't change your mind.
As best I know, I always agree with the conclusions of Confessional Lutherans (and specifically the LCMS), but the means by which we reach those conclusions are sometimes different. Predestination is one case. I agree with what the LCMS concludes about predestination, but I hate how they get to that conclusion and how they explain it. I can live with that for several reasons. 1) I know my arguments are sometimes speculative and weak on scriptural support, 2) All the alternatives people have proposed are equally weak in scriptural support and don't make sense to me, 3) my salvation doesn't depend on it. God will forgive my errors.
If, however, those things are bothering you, I am trying to suggest that you need to change one of your assumptions ... and they are assumptions. Many of the things you claim as "well known", "certain", etc. are just an opinion. Maybe a widely held opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. So, from this point forward it will do no good to make those types of statements. You need to support your position.
Now, with respect to Satan, I am saying you haven't answered the "why" question. Though powerful, he is not God's evil twin. He is created and finite. Therefore, Satan (and other demons) are not the reason for every sin. Satan was an actor in Eden that contributed to Eve's fall, but that doesn't mean he was necessary. That fall did lead to our current broken nature (the source of sin for you and me), but if you're going to argue that even if he doesn't cause all current sin, he was an essential part of the chain that led to where we are, then you have to follow the chain to its beginning to satisfactorily answer why.
All we know is what the Bible tells us, right?
No, not really. That seems like the abuse of
sola scriptura I see so often. Scripture is the final authority, but that doesn't mean it's all we know.
Ok, what is it? I don't see anything that explains what the reason actually was.
Based on your response, maybe I chose the wrong words, but it still seems you're looking for a definitive answer - a verse that says, "X caused Abraham's faith." A lot of people want that definitive answer, but you're not going to find it. The story
is the answer. Given our differences, I should just quote you the entire section of Genesis dealing with Abraham. However, I will give you what I conclude:
* God shocked Abraham into action with a miraculous event
* Abraham responded out of a sense of fear and obedience
* As Abraham's relationship with God grew, he came to trust him. He saw first hand that God was faithful to his promises.
* As a result of experience and the trust it built, Abraham developed faith.
No one is saying God causes all future events. And no one is saying God has responsibility for all future events in the way you're describing. What I am saying is that before the foundation of the world, before God created anything, God could have chosen to set in motion any sort of world he desired, right?
Yes.
God, who has perfect foreknowledge, knowing all that would result from an infinite number of possible creations and subsequent acts (whether those acts are the result of your understanding of free will or not is irrelevant), chose to create the world THIS WAY ... the way we are currently living. If he had chosen to create some other world with some other set of conditions, everything would have been different.
Yet here you ascribe to God the very responsibility you denied in the previous statement: God made it happen this way. God knew it would happen this way. God could have made it happen differently, but he didn't.
By that reasoning, God is responsible for evil. Are you familiar with the different types of "cause"? If not, you might want to check it out. Cause doesn't always mean direct cause.
If you don't accept any of those five points, then you must, based on logic, accept my argument.
I will agree that your conclusions follow from your assumptions. It's a path many have taken, but one I find unacceptable. I don't know that your 5 points are all-inclusive of the alternatives, nor that your phrasing matches with what I've said. It is obvious to me that you don't yet understand my position. However, in a loose sense, I am stating something like #2: "Reject the idea God knows everything that's going to happen before it happens".
I didn't address it because my position, which I did address, totally rejects the entire foundation of your position.
OK, but you didn't explain why you think my position is wrong.
I don't believe "chaos" is possible from God's perspective. God knows everything that will happen before it happens. God created the world knowing all that would come from that choice. That was a decision on God's part to produce what you call "chaos," which implies a lack of design. I reject that totally, and I'd love to see where in scripture the "chaos" theory plays out. At every turn, we hear about how God designed this or planned that or used this for good. I don't see anything about chaos or randomness anywhere.
I would reject what you have stated as well, which, again, indicates you don't understand me. Regardless, as I said very early on, I realize much of my position is speculation, but there is some minimal scriptural support. It also depends on how your version of the Bible translates certain verses, which is also something I mentioned earlier in this post. But, I'll point you to a few places.
Gen 1:1-2 is sometimes translated as the chaos of the early creation before God brought order to it.
Isaiah 24 is sometimes called the chaos chapter. Some translations (such as the NASB) actually use the word "chaos" in v.10 when they translate that chapter. Throughout the various verses different translations use different words: confusion, disorder, etc.
So, am I to receive the same consideration when I "synthesize" (the word you used earlier), as you asked for earlier?
1 Cor 14:33 when translated as "disorder" speaks more to the view I am espousing than other translations do. Here it is clearly proclaimed that God is not a god of disorder (i.e. chaos). I absolutely accept that, yet by proclaiming such a thing there is a tacit admission that disorder exists. If God created everything, and God is not disorder, then where did disorder come from? My answer is Augustinian in nature. Disorder is not a "thing", but an absence of order.
The most interesting verse is James 3:16 because it connects disorder and evil.
For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing.
In this verse evil and disorder are both listed, which to me implies they are separate yet connected. That is why I said I view evil as an emergent property of certain kinds of disorder.
