Omniscience and Predestination- Can't Have One Without the Other

Status
Not open for further replies.
seebs-

You have been assiduous about not answering me on the Fall. Do you think now that I've asked about 4 times you could answer me, please? Since the Fall is pretty much one of the 2 central cruxes of human history, God's ordination or non-ordination of it seems significant somehow.

Was God bound and obligated to create a representative for our entire race whom He knew invariably would rebel and Fall, or did He freely CHOOSE to create such a man. Could God have created someone different, whom He foresaw NOT Falling of His own free will.

Or was there just this one person in the inifinitely creative mind of the Creator. That seems to me to be a bit of a stretch, since I in my finitude can imagine a host of people.

It'll be nice to hear from you on this.
 
Upvote 0

Ben johnson

Legend
Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟54,049.00
Faith
Christian
Seebs, you have written such excellent posts, I do not think that I could add a thing. :)

Just a few comments:
Unless you can come up with a reason that God was FORCED to create someone with these traits and forseen decisions. Outside of you coming up with one of those, you are left with the conclusion that everything you say, do and feel is ultimately owing to God's sovereign ordination.
I have no idea how a soul is created, and how it becomes associated with a fetus (very likely even the zygote). But---it is my observation from Scripture, that God has set into motion certain "natural laws". One of these laws was spoken by Noah: "Go forth and multiply, and replenish the Earth."

Although there are verses such as Psalm 139:13, isn't it possible that God does NOT have a "workshop" where babies are manufactured? Using Seeb's computer-program-illustration of a few posts back, DNA creates the process known as "gametogenesis". Mitosis & meiosis, (and then mitosis again on fertilization), very real "computer-programs" written in molecular chemistry by God, yet following natural law as God prescribed. So then, He very much did "form our inward parts and knit us in our mothers' wombs", yet the biology was ordained by Him to run by itself. Can we then discuss how "God creates some, KNOWING that they will perish"? Do you think God is an ACTIVE participant in creating each person, or do you think He is more passive, because of His plan (when the program was WRITTEN) that life will reproduce?

If mankind has been, by God's omnipotent will, created and placed in the world according to a paradigm of "sentient choice", then those who REJECT God certainly are not "thwarting His will". And this is consistent with the idea that He has ordained naturally-occurring reproduction, where each person comes into being with the potential of being saved.
You haven't given a shred of evidence that God holds this so-called "Free Will" in the esteem that you claim. You've made pious assertions about it, but shown nothing except that you really, really want it to be true.
Jesus prayed for Peter, "that his faith not fail". Lk22:32 Why do you suppose Jesus did that? Jesus was GOD, so if Peter had been predestined, surely Jesus would have KNOWN that Peter's faith COULD not fail. Or was Jesus simply being obtuse? Maybe rhetorical?

And then there was JUDAS---absolutely chosen by Jesus, yet he became a devil. Judas cast out demons---if he was never a believer, does this not contradict Jesus' OWN WORDS? "How can you say I cast out demons by the prince of demons? If satan casts out satan, he is divided against himself, how shall he stand?" Do you see ANYTHING but free will represented in John6:67-70 These are only two examples of free will---there are many others (Hymenaeus and Alexander for example in 1Tim1:19).

What of all the warnings about perseverence and endurance for us? Do you take all of them as "empty hyperbole"?
On the other hand, I have shown that God is omnipotent, omniscient and our Creator, and that as such, He had absolute control over whom He created. And that X number are born with one eternal destiny, and Y with another. (forgive me, in mathematics different variables are required unless the quantities are equal... )
How have you shown this? Please show this in Scripture, and please be specific...
Also, you have made no attempt to refute that the Fall was ordained. Do you have any response of any kind to this? Or do you think God had his arm somehow twisted into creating Adam? Was there some cosmic force pressing in upon God causing Him to create a man whom He knew would be the secondary cause of billions of people going to Hell?
Then you believe, by definition, that satan was predestined to rebel. This contradicts God's nature---because He is PERFECT, and PERFECTLY JUST, God is constrained to allow each person to be condemned on their own blame---and this includes the angels. "JUST" means "right, fair, deserved". For GOD to have decided that a man, or a demon, would be assigned to Hell apart from his/its own choice can NEVER be called "right, fair, deserved".

RE "God causing the creation of billions of people, KNOWING they would go to Hell"---I think a passage from 1Corinthians applies:

"Love is patient and kind, it is not arrogant or boastful, does not act wrongly, does not seek its own way, is not provoked, does not hold a grudge, does not rejoice in unrighteousness; but love rejoices in truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, endures all things, and never ends."

What does this passage from 1Cor13 have to do with God, and His Creation?

GOD IS LOVE.

Do you understand the connection? God has a nature---He is absolute and perfect GOOD, perfect LOVE. He cannot do evil. He cannot tempt (Jms1:13). He cannot cause anyone to fall.

We are God's creation---very probably because He was LONELY. Such a fierce and deep love in God's heart for us, we cannot even BEGIN to understand. "Greater love hath NO ONE than to lay down his life for a friend." Love so great, that God became MAN, dwelt with us---and then endured the worst kind of death in history---simply because He LOVES US!

God's heart ached, and still aches, for FELLOWSHIP. Do you understand now? Fellowship must be freely given---it can never be "sculpted".

LOVE DOES NOT SEEK ITS OWN WAY!

God's own nature demanded that there be only one way to create mankind---with the ABILITY to fall. The pain and sorrow in God's heart for EACH child that DOES fall, we again cannot even BEGIN to understand. (This is the meaning of the verses, "There is more rejoicing in Heaven over one sinner who REPENTS than over ninety-nine righteous who NEED no repentance!" Lk15:7)

Why would God either directly or indirectly create people whom He KNEW would go to Hell?

Because of love.

Fellowship and love can only be solicited---never demanded.
 
Upvote 0
Ben Jonson (and Seebs as well)-

Your response to the question of Adam was no response at all. Lobbing a counter-accusation isn't the same thing as answering.

As for the rest, particularly God's role in procreation, I'm happy to answer your points, and have posts ready to go. Your thoughts on these points were well-constructed and definitely deserving of response. But I'm unwilling to allow my question about Adam to be buried in a flurry of other points and irrelevancies. You and Seebs have been dodging it since post 2.

The case of Adam's Fall is free from all the sophistry about "natural laws". He was created directly by God, not through procreation. He, as we both agree, had an unfettered free will, unbound by sin. And he freely chose to Fall. On these things we're both in total agreement I believe.

Now please, with a minimum of tap-dancing:

Did God HAVE to create Adam, or could He have created someone whose free and willing obedience was foreseen just as clearly as Adam's free and willing disobedience?
 
Upvote 0

Ben johnson

Legend
Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟54,049.00
Faith
Christian
"Sophistry"---unsound or misleading but subtle reasoning...

And, which part of my post(s) would you view as "specious"?
Now please, with a minimum of tap-dancing:

Did God HAVE to create Adam, or could He have created someone whose free and willing obedience was foreseen just as clearly as Adam's free and willing disobedience?
And here I thought we were responding with no-tapdancing-at-all. But, then, your questions:

Could God have created someone whose free and willing obedience was forseen just as clearly as Adam's free and willing disobedience?To answer this, I would have bo BE God. But, my opinion, is that God had only one option, to accomplish creation exactly as He did. I don't think He purposed a fallen angel, so that there could be temptation in the Garden of Eden. But even if satan had never fallen, 1Tim 1 clearly says "each man is tempted when he is carried away by his own lust". It might be that Eve would have fallen even without the snake. (I will NEVER understand why Eve didn't run away screaming when the snake started talking...)

Did God predestine Adam's fall?

NO.

Eve believed the deceiver, and made a free choice.

Fallen Eve then tempted Adam. (I will NEVER understand why Adam didn't say, "GET AWAY from me, woman! God said NO!" Would the story now read, "Adam and Stephanie?)

Eve said, "The devil made me do it."

Adam said, "God, the woman YOU GAVE ME made me do it..."

My opinion, is that God could not have created Adam fore-knowing that he would not fall. To have done this, would have been to cast Adam's will---and this violates the premise of Creation.

Adam had to have free choice.

Adam fell because of free choice and because of deception.

Adam could have remained in fellowship, but he chose to sin.

God did not orchestrate any part of that---outside of creating the Universe with the ABILITY to choose.

And, the telephone number, for the Garden of Eden, was:

...ADAM-8-1-2...

:)
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by SemperReformanda
seebs-

You have been assiduous about not answering me on the Fall. Do you think now that I've asked about 4 times you could answer me, please? Since the Fall is pretty much one of the 2 central cruxes of human history, God's ordination or non-ordination of it seems significant somehow.

Was God bound and obligated to create a representative for our entire race whom He knew invariably would rebel and Fall, or did He freely CHOOSE to create such a man. Could God have created someone different, whom He foresaw NOT Falling of His own free will.

Or was there just this one person in the inifinitely creative mind of the Creator. That seems to me to be a bit of a stretch, since I in my finitude can imagine a host of people.

It'll be nice to hear from you on this.

One of the reasons I've ignored it is that I've never really formed a strong opinion on it.

Seriously!

It *DOESN'T MATTER* to me, you see.

I know, today, that I am sinful. I know that God loves me. I know that God will forgive my sins, as long as I have faith, and I'm making some kind of reasonable effort. I know these things because I *directly experience* them. Well, okay, I haven't experienced heaven or hell yet... but I don't need to, because I have faith in God.

So, I don't really *know* about the fall. Maybe it's an allegory, to explain to us why sin is a problem. Maybe it's a literal thing which happened. Maybe God created Adam, fully aware of what would happen, but did so, not because those specific outcomes were the ones He most wanted, but because He wanted to create us so much that He would accept our fall and the need for our redemption.

When we form loving relationships, can you honestly say we don't know with true certainty that we will be hurt, and that we will suffer, as a result? Does that mean we want to suffer, or that suffering is something we recognize as inherent in something *so* good that it's *WORTH* the suffering?

That's how much God loves us; knowing that we would rebel, and hurt Him, He created us anyway, because He wanted us to have the chance to see what He had made.

The exact details of the Fall are unimportant; we know that we are now fallen, and that we need God's help. Does the exact sequence of events change this? I don't think so.
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by SemperReformanda

Did God HAVE to create Adam, or could He have created someone whose free and willing obedience was foreseen just as clearly as Adam's free and willing disobedience?

I don't know.

If I were forced to guess, my guess would be this: God could either create a free being, or not create a free being. For that being to be genuinely free, God would have had to decide what being to make, and then let that being choose freely.

I think it is quite likely that the disobedience is a logically necessary conclusion of freedom; no imperfect being could ever be free of sin, thus, no imperfect being could ever be perfectly obedient. Any being God created which was less than Himself, but free-willed, would *NECESSARILY* sin.

And yet, He forged ahead. Now *that's* devotion.
 
Upvote 0
Now we see...

...why radical Free Will, anthropocentric theology is the halfway-house to liberalism.

Once we actually examine the presuppositions, and pin the adherents down for even a brief moment, the sub-Christian results of radical Free Willism begin to manifest.

"We are God's creation---very probably because He was LONELY."

Ben managed, in no time at all, to reach the conclusion that God was LONELY and needed to create mankind to satisfy this need. While it is his perfect right to believe this, we have at this point ceased to speak about the God of the Bible. God's perfection is one of the universally recognized attributes of His Being. Ben has managed, with a brief series of keystrokes, to portray God as imperfect and incomplete.

This is interesting, in light of the fact that we are commanded to "be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect." The word there means "complete", and is much better rendered in the Russian where they translate it exactly thus. It's interesting that we're commanded to be something that Ben doesn't think even God is.

The speciousness of this thinking is immediately evident when we remember that God is trinitarian. There is perfect, infinite love and fellowship among the Trinity. And it is a fellowship of equals. It's bemusing to imagine Ben thinking his limited fellowship with God is anything but a pale reflection of the fellowship that Father has with Son, Son with Spirit and Spirit with Father. We DO have fellowship with God, but the idea that God is lonely, and thereby incomplete, is sub-Christian.
 
Upvote 0
Next...

"But, my opinion, is that God had only one option, to accomplish creation exactly as He did."

Ben also denies the omnipotence of God. Recognized by Christians of all stripes to be a "biggie." Once we deny the omnis, it's pretty hard to squeeze in under the tent of genuine Christian belief.

The God of the Bible is infinite in wisdom, power, creativity, and intelligence. But the God that Ben conceives of has less creative ability than my 6-year-old son. (Please note, Ben, that I am not in any way questioning your Christianity or personal faith. I am questioning whether on a theological level these particular beliefs can be called Christian in any real sense.)

The one limitation that real Christianity recognizes upon God is His own moral nature. (Aside from sophistical things like "Can God create a rock bigger than Himself?) Ben's belief system, however, believes that God is unable to create the world any differently than He did. This is imposing a MASSIVE limitation upon the omnipotence of God, since Creation is one of His crowning acts as God. And a God who isn't omnipotent isn't the God of the Bible.
 
Upvote 0
Now with seebs-

So, I don't really *know* about the fall. Maybe it's an allegory, to explain to us why sin is a problem. Maybe it's a literal thing which happened.

While I find your honesty refreshing, you've also demonstrated the inevitable result of man-centered theology. Once we demote God, the truth and sufficiency of His Word follows closely and inevitably behind.

So the Fall might be allegorical, rather than literal? Now that you've abandoned the Bible as literal truth, we have little left to say to one another. Without an objective standard of truth, the things we say are just so much gas (predominately nitrogen and oxygen.) And if you don't believe the Bible is literal truth, then we have no meaningful fellowship or common ground from which to speak. Any more than I would with a Mormon or JW.

I know, today, that I am sinful. I know that God loves me. I know that God will forgive my sins, as long as I have faith, and I'm making some kind of reasonable effort.

So, if the Fall might be allegorical, isn't it possible that "salvation", "Heaven" and the rest of your faith might also be allegorical? Your fellow liberals tend to interpret it that way. How do you KNOW you're saved? Oh, your subjective emotional experience.

Which is identical to what Mormons, JWs, Muslims and New Agers claim. The only way you can KNOW who God is is because He's revealed it to you in His Word. It's the only thing that separates your "burning in the bosom" from a Mormons. But you've jettisoned that. You have no basis for saying that salvation, Heaven and Hell aren't equally allegorical.
 
Upvote 0
seebs-

Any being God created which was less than Himself, but free-willed, would *NECESSARILY* sin.

This is almost surreal. You do realize, don't you, that you have just eliminated Free Will in any meaningful sense? Once you say that it was "necessary" that Adam fall, you eliminate any hope of him NOT sinning.

So we started with 2 options: Sinning, or Not Sinning. You've just said that it "necessarily" followed that he would pick option one. Which meant that there was no CHOICE involved. There is no exercise of will apart from choice.

I believe totally in Adam's free will. No external force caused him to Fall in the Garden. You, the ostensible defender of Free Will everywhere, just destroyed it in our representative and progenitor. You do realize what you wrote, right?

Ben-

It'll be interesting to get your take on this... Adam sinned because he CHOSE to, as I believe, or did he sin NECESSARILY?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by SemperReformanda
Now with seebs-

So, I don't really *know* about the fall. Maybe it's an allegory, to explain to us why sin is a problem. Maybe it's a literal thing which happened.

While I find your honesty refreshing, you've also demonstrated the inevitable result of man-centered theology. Once we demote God, the truth and sufficiency of His Word follows closely and inevitably behind.

So the Fall might be allegorical, rather than literal? Now that you've abandoned the Bible as literal truth, we have little left to say to one another. Without an objective standard of truth, the things we say are just so much gas (predominately nitrogen and oxygen.) And if you don't believe the Bible is literal truth, then we have no meaningful fellowship or common ground from which to speak. Any more than I would with a Mormon or JW.

Fair enough. I literalism is a mistake; it's very instructive to read Augustine's comments on what he thinks you get from a "literal" reading of Genesis.

Out of curiousity, do you believe in transubstantiation? If not, how do you justify this non-literal reading?

While we're at it, did Christ say that divorce was never allowed, or that divorce was only allowed in the case of adultery? There is a specific event which is described, *NEARLY* identically, in two of the gospels. Which way did it really happen? Did He say "except in the case of adultery", or did He not say it? If He said it, why does the quote in one gospel not describe the actual words He said? If He didn't say it, how did it get in there?

I don't think this is "man-centered" theology; I think it's "God-centered" theology, instead of "book-centered".
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by SemperReformanda
seebs-

Any being God created which was less than Himself, but free-willed, would *NECESSARILY* sin.

This is almost surreal. You do realize, don't you, that you have just eliminated Free Will in any meaningful sense? Once you say that it was "necessary" that Adam fall, you eliminate any hope of him NOT sinning.

So we started with 2 options: Sinning, or Not Sinning. You've just said that it "necessarily" followed that he would pick option one. Which meant that there was no CHOICE involved. There is no exercise of will apart from choice.

I think you have made a mistake; you have conflated the absolute freedom of choice in each individual case, with the practical observation that, given forever to live, he would inevitably fall sooner or later.
 
Upvote 0
Ben-

My opinion, is that God could not have created Adam fore-knowing that he would not fall. To have done this, would have been to cast Adam's will---and this violates the premise of Creation.

This has me a bit confused. It was possible for God to create Adam foreknowing that He WOULD Fall, but it was impossible for God to create Adam knowing He would not? And again, you're artificially limiting God, since He wasn't in any way compelled to create Adam, as opposed to someone else whom He would foresee as being obedient. God seems to have no Free Will in your belief system...

So in other words, the Fall was inevitable, and Adam had no Free Will. Because God couldn't create a representative who wouldn't Fall. You, too, have destroyed free will in any real sense, since you've now stated that God was unable to create someone who wouldn't Fall. Which means whomever he created had no choice but to Fall.

Like with Seebs, having only one choice destroys "free will" in any meaningful sense. Unless you think things can happen differently than God has foreseen? This would demolish omniscience along with the omnipotence you've already gotten rid of. Rejecting omnipresence along with them would give you a hat trick... ;)
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Saying that I have "only one choice", which is to live until I die, does not deprive me of choice in the matter of whether or not I wish to jump in front of a truck.

Not everything that can be summarized as if it were a single decision really is; this is a linguistic problem, not a logical one.

My nature is such that I can never purge myself of sin entirely, but if you look at any particular instance of sin I commit, I could have avoided it had I tried harder. That's why it's called sin; because I *could* avoid it, but don't. If it were merely totally inevitable, I would have no culpability.
 
Upvote 0

Offtoou777

Junior Member
Sep 20, 2002
19
0
Kansas
Visit site
✟638.00
Faith
Christian
Hello, we have not met, this is an awesome sight and I am doing good to be here and have been thankfull for it to be a place to hang my Hat

again good to meet everyone . God is Good, all the time.........

I have had the honor to discuss with Christians about the omnipresence of God. first I realized that I was looking at the worlds veiw of omniscience:
takeing everything that I could possibly know for a lifetime would be somthing in it-self alone, then try ed to comprehend all my knowledge at the same time. Cant. I deem in that we will not ever be omnipresent not even with our new body. Thus I have found that everything I know I came to the knowledge through somone or have made realtion to gain access to knowing the facts indirectly through a mutual person. My General rationel has kept my knowledge fallible, if by no other means then by my words and / or action I generate for others, i.e. past, present future.

( as what happened to Joseph) Exodus 1: 8 In the mean time there arose a new king over Egypt, that knew not Joseph: and in response to in this instance, the new king of Egypts knowledge that he gained- Exodus 1:9 And he said to his people: Behold the people of the children of Israel are numerous and stronger than we.

I have learned by trying to set my bias of the worlds understanding aside:

God moves omnisciently, as the only concievable thought of how I think this is possible is through intensity, light , love, on an firmament to firmament basis such as that of Creation as it be.........but after intensity His omniscience goes right beyond my comprehension.

Gods omnipresence is true and living, He knows all things, and He knows them all at the same time.

Thus: God came by all His Knowledge completly Honest, this makes Him my Judge...........

God Speed,
Off
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ben johnson

Legend
Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟54,049.00
Faith
Christian
This has me a bit confused. It was possible for God to create Adam foreknowing that He WOULD Fall, but it was impossible for God to create Adam knowing He would not? And again, you're artificially limiting God, since He wasn't in any way compelled to create Adam, as opposed to someone else whom He would foresee as being obedient. God seems to have no Free Will in your belief system...
It was impossible for God to create AN Adam who WOULD NOT fall. By dictating the personality that is incapable of sinning, God would be violating the substance of LOVE.

This issue really boils down to, "who is CAUSAL in man's actions?" To say that by choosing to create an Adam that COULD fall, GOD CAUSED THE FALL, violates the reality. Adam chose. He had the ability, the resources, the "everything", to choose NOT to fall. As did lucifer---2/3 of Heaven chose not to fall.

If God is said to be causal in The Fall, even if by indirect implication, then this violates both love and justice. For God to be JUST each punishment must be fair and deserved.

Only the CAUSE of an action can DESERVE either good or bad consequences. ("Deserve"---Latin, to be worthy {as of punishment or reward})

Hello, Offtoou! Welcome to the boards! I'm not sure I understood your post---are you saying that God is too infinite to understand in any facet?
 
Upvote 0

Offtoou777

Junior Member
Sep 20, 2002
19
0
Kansas
Visit site
✟638.00
Faith
Christian
Hello Ben,

Not at all, I have the conjecture  only in that Lucifer was the one whom made had the original knowledge of what God judged as "sin". God acted in two ways : 1. on His Judgement of sin, ...thus He created a place for the originate of this knowledge to the desolation from His presence, God created hell for lucifer and one third of the angels, at that point, not for man. God did know that satan would give eve his own knowledge our origination of sin, by Jesus taking all sin, God has placed the tree of the knowledge of "good and evil" that once satan planted his seed of this knowledge into what he knew was unto all the generations, that indeed God had placed for us this understanding of sin that we may also have The Truth and The way out of sining  on His terms  not our own death but of that which is the work of salvation that we must choose. As too, the tree of Life was also in the midst of the garden.

2. God has taken all sin and formed it as a knowledge of "good and evil"we can hold to Truth which is sent by Christ into the world, thus hell was made for satan and 1/3rd the angels and not for man. i.e. God has a plan of salvation for us brought by righteousness those willing to accept the work of Christ. but the original judgement of sin still holds the works of the knowledge of good and evil "sin" to be the works individually that of desolation from God and His presence.

The seven scrolls of the revelation are a loosing of that which enables desolation to become an abomination to God, and also become a completed work in that day.


Ben I hope I did not ramble on, Christian Forum is a very good sight, and man I have allot to learn be patient with me. lol


To Be in Christ a finished work, as an establishe dnew creation in Gods omniscience that I may be sustained by Christ, everlasting to everlasting.  amen
Off
 
Upvote 0
Dear SemperReformanda,

I agree to a large extent with the thoughts contained in your original post, but I would like to ask some questions of you using the proposition post (#17) as material for their formation.

In post #17, proposition #4, you state "God was entirely free in His decision to create mankind, as well as in His decision to create the particular people He created." My first question is what is the basis for this proposition? My second question is why do you not think that proposition 17:3 (God is limited only by His moral nature.) has some bearing upon 17:4?

Proposition 17:5 "God, being infinitely creative, could have created an infinite number of different people."

It appears that you derived proposition 17:5b from 17:5a. However, 5b is not logically necessitated by 5a, since 5a is in fact limited by 17:3. How is 5b derived then and what other presupposition are you using in its formation to arrive at 5b

Proposition 17:9 "None of these people can do anything differently than what God has foreseen, because then He wouldn't be omniscient."

Concerning the phrase "people can do", I think this is misplaced in the discussion, since your argument assumes the presuppostion of the free-will position. In this case it would be correct to say "people will do" and not "can do", since the word "will" denotes actuality, while the word "can" denotes posibility. In the free-will position people can in fact do other than that which God foreknows, but they will NOT do other than that which God foreknows. Hence the term "free-will". Freedom of possibility must be assumed to continue with the free-will presupposition you posited in your original post, but not freedom of actuality.

Finally, proposition 17:11 "The choice of creating these specific people was entirely the sovereign choice of God, and He was in no way bound to create these particular people."

This proposition, like that of 17:5, seems to assume the answer of 17:4 which is questionably affected by 17:3

All propositions not mentioned may be understood to have my implicit support until otherwise stated.
 
Upvote 0
Everyone-

Sorry I've been AWOL for a couple of days. We're hosting a family from the States who might join our team here in Kiev (we're hoping to start a 3rd church plant in a few months.) I've been showing them around the city and hoping to entice them here... I'd appreciate any prayers for guidance for them as they make this decision. Thanks!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Seebs-

"There is a specific event which is described, *NEARLY* identically, in two of the gospels. Which way did it really happen? Did He say "except in the case of adultery", or did He not say it. I don't think this is "man-centered" theology; I think it's "God-centered" theology, instead of "book-centered?."

This isn't the thread to debate inerrancy, but again, I appreciate your honesty. The significant thing is that we no longer have a common source of authority, since you deny the truth and validity of the Word. While I'm happy to keep discussing this with you, it's now clear we come from irreconcilably different viewpoints. My interest is in my fellow Bible-believing Christians. Liberals are free to wander off on whatever theological and lifestyle tangents the "Holy Spirit?" (which is to say, their personal desires and emotions) might lead them.

"That's why it's called sin; because I *could* avoid it, but don't."

Are you talking about allegorical sin, or literal sin? And on what basis?

"I think you have made a mistake; you have conflated the absolute freedom of choice in each individual case, with the practical observation that, given forever to live, he would inevitably fall sooner or later."

Not at all, though you get props for the nice use of "conflate." (I'm a logophile.) On a micro-level you are correct, Adam in your system maintains a semblance of free choice. But you've acceded to the central aspect of MY position, which is that the Fall was ordained.

Though you cover it with the fig leaf of time, it amounts to the same thing. You're saying that God created Adam within a paradigm in which he would, to use your words, "necessarily" and "inevitably" fall. Both of us say that Adam still CHOSE to Fall, though it was inevitable that he would do so. Within my paradigm there was at least a theoretical chance for the guy, you go even farther than I do.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.