Question for meticulous sovereignty folks

[moonbeam]

I can't really disprove your position.

Thats because my position is logical......yours is illogical.

The facts in this text reveal God's transcendence over the human paradigm of justice.


And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

You are unable to offer your interpretation of this scripture because it contradicts your false construct of God.


You continue to avoid the truth of God's transcendence over the human paradigm of justice.


Your arguments are based on emotion and illogical conclusions.

 

[moonbeam]

Simple logic.

Logic tells us that there is God A...and that which God has created B.

There is NO other logical equation....can you provide another?

God 'created' ANTI-creation.

That is why it is included in the category of creation ...because God [A] created it [as you say yourself]

Anti-creation is synonymous with anti-Christ or darkness...the antithesis of Light.

I think many of us already know that in the world of Calvinism God can do anything He wants,

God can do anything He wants...He is the transcendent Creator and Life source of all that which has been created in the heavens and the earth.

God A is transcendent over that which He has created B.

Thats a fact....end of story.

You don't have to like it....but you will have to live with it.

Adam is described as God's son. (Luke 3:38)

How is it exactly that you propose to DIVIDE God's son from his Father again???

There is a profound distinction between Adam and His Father.

Can Adam say of himself in truth "I AM" ? .... NO....thats because he isn't.

Thats a distinction that will never change.

Transcendence is not the issue in these exchanges. It is in B defining what A is and does.

God [A] has provided the creature man with the Truth about God [A] in the form of a record of data [scripture] and the tutor/interpretor of that data [the Spirit]....the purpose of which is to define God [A] and what God does in a manner intelligeble to the creature man .

One outcome of this data [Truth] is the fact that God is transcendent over the human paradigm of justice...this is demonstrated in Job...would you agree?

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

 

[squint]

Logic tells us that there is God A...and that which God has created B.

There is NO other logical equation....can you provide another?

That is why it is included in the category of creation ...because God [A] created it [as you say yourself]

Look, it's a MINOR point but ANTI-creation is NOT creation but created, OK?

Anti-creation is synonymous with anti-Christ or darkness...the antithesis of Light.

There are many observations that can be made about 'what' anti-creation is, but of course when we can't 'see' these 'things' it's problematic. We don't SEE the 'power of death' or the exactness of how it works. We 'see' the 'results.'

God can do anything He wants...He is the transcendent Creator and Life source of all that which has been created in the heavens and the earth.

God A is transcendent over that which He has created B.

Thats a fact....end of story.

I have no issues with God's Transcendence. It's when B tries to say what that is or consists of that there are NUMEROUS difficulties as prior noted.

One difficulty with Calvinists is that they proclaim GOD IS ENTIRELY SOVEREIGN. Well GREAT. I agree. And THEN they say WE KNOW WHAT ALL OF THOSE DETERMINATIONS CONSIST OF! And I just say you now have a very great logical fallacy on your hands.

You don't have to like it....but you will have to live with it.

More than happy to live with God's Transcendence, just not Calvins limited version of same.

There is a profound distinction between Adam and His Father.

Depends on how much you want to DIVIDE Adam from his Father eh? If you want to make God the FATHER of 'total depravity' I can say that is rather absurd.

Can Adam say of himself in truth "I AM" ? .... NO....thats because he isn't.

When you can tell me the entirety of what God IS then you can tell me the entirety of what His son is. lol. I might tend to tread carefully into that arena.

Thats a distinction that will never change.

We certainly know that the 'last' Adam, presumably the LAST ADAM, became a life giving spirit, presumably rejoined unto his Father.

God [A] has provided the creature man with the Truth about God [A] in the form of a record of data [scripture] and the tutor/interpretor of that data [the Spirit]....the purpose of which is to define God [A] and what God does in a manner intelligeble to the creature man .

Inclusive of which is The Transcendence factor which will remain beyond our reach in HIS ENTIRETY. You can only logic your way so far into these matters until you run headlong into "MY WAYS ARE NOT YOUR WAYS AND MY THOUGHTS ARE NOT YOUR THOUGHTS." That is where YOUR DOOR closes.

One outcome of this data [Truth] is the fact that God is transcendent over the human paradigm of justice...this is demonstrated in Job...would you agree?

Undoubtedly. Even over Calvinistic determinations of same.

enjoy!

squint

 

[squint]

Just a short butt-in...

IN free will, people aren't sent to hell for not believing. They're sent to hell because they've sinned against God.

Muz

Patent BALONEY. There are many 'freewillers' who adhere to UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT for sins of mankind, and they do so with great support from scriptures such as THESE:

2 Corinthians 5:19
that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

UNbelief is also a sin.

enjoy!

squint

 

[Godzman]

If God were not able to create a purview where we can exercise our autonomous will within the limits God allows, then God is neither sovereign nor all powerful. A doctrine making that claim puts God in a box. But scripture says we make plans but God directs our steps. So scripture teaches there is a tension between what we try to do and what we are allowed to do. Sounds like a purview to me.

Maybe God could because he can see the big picture, doesn't mean that he would or that he has.

 

[moonbeam]

Look, it's a MINOR point but ANTI-creation is NOT creation but created, OK?

If anti-creation/Christ aka Darkness is "created" .... than it is by logical necessity a constituent element of God's [A] creation

That is logical.

Not to agree is illogical.

 

[squint]

No, it’s not the same thing. To punish a man for freely, volitionally transgressing the law is not the same thing as punishing a man who had no choice as to his behavior.

First of all, you are speaking more of moral theology. In that construct man is rewarded for his good decisions and his BAD ONES are overlooked in the name of God given certain 'conditions' being met, i.e. awareness, repentance etc. depending on who is doing the 'formula count.'

SIN is 3 things:

Anything not of faith (which works through LOVE)
Transgression of THE LAW
OF THE DEVIL

Freewillers or moral theology equations are pathetically SHORT on points 2 and 3.

Transgression of THE LAW does NOT consist of merely making GOOD MORAL CHOICES. The Law must be followed PERFECTLY WITHOUT FAIL in order to 'claim' being LAWFUL 'under the Law' which of course HAS NEVER HAPPENED except by GOD HIMSELF in Flesh! So the entire 'moral theology' construct is quite pathetic in its 'replacement' of NOT SINNING under the Law being exchanged for makind GOOD MORAL DECISIONS. A very faulty REPLACEMENT for LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. One does not become a LITTLE MORALLY GOOD for making SOME good moral decisions. The LAW DEMANDS PERFECTION, period. One who breaks the LEAST of the commandments is guilty of BREAKING THEM ALL:

James 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

The one is just, the other unjust.

NO, ALL mankind are UNJUST because of the PRESENCE OF SIN no matter how much WHITEWASH is put upon THE FACT of SINS EXISTENCE within the flesh/mind/hearts of MANKIND. Moral theology is A GLOSS OVER the FACTS.

Secondly, I don’t believe that hell is eternal.

Sorry, I do. Just not for mankind. The DEVIL and his messengers WILL spend eternity in the LAKE OF FIRE. You are correct that even within established orthodoxy such as the RCC a belief that ANY of mankind go to HELL is 'not required.' They have purgatory as their alternative for the kinder hearted ones.

I think it’s very longlasting though, maybe a million years. Just my opinion.

The Jews believe in a temporal cleansing/purging process of 12 months if I recall. Funny after the entirety of the O.T. they never had a belief in eternal torment for mankind eh?

(I doubt that a finite crime merits an infinite, eternal penalty).

The entire construct of 'penalty for sins' depends on where you are on the atonement. IF you believe in the sufficiency of THE CROSS for all mankinds SINS (universal/unlimited atonement for mankind,) then punishment for sins of ANY SORT unto mankind is off the table and that includes the penalty for the sin of UNbelief.

IF there were a penalty phase that is temporal, then there was no need for Jesus to TAKE AWAY the sins of the world as the temporal penalties would simply be invoked at the judgment.

I will soon quit responding to you if you keep insisting that my position is the same as Calvinism.

I certainly wouldn't classify you as a 'typical freewiller' if you don't believe in ETERNAL TORTURE IN FIRE for unbelieving or sinning mankind. That is NOT a typical understanding within their various camps so THANKS for clarifying and DISSECTING yourself OUT OF the masses of their understandings. If someone is a freewill promoter, that comes with the fact that MOST of them believe in eternal torture in fire. So KUDOS to you for being at least a BIT kinder than the majority.

Please respect the differences.

Duly noted. You are kinder than the majority of your cohorts, only sentencing your fellow man to A MILLIONS years of burning alive forever rather than ETERNITY. Please feel free to insert your favorite form of condemnation if the burning alive in torture doesn't fit.

No, the difference there is that your conscience carried no prior sense of moral obligation to give your wallet to this stranger.

Right! The exercise of FREEWILL was quickly INVOKED by THE GUN and the THREAT to your hide. Has little to do with freewill. So you can see that in THREATENING people with various forms of TORTURE in order to EXTRACT a PERFORMANCE out of them to have them SAVE THEIR HIDES also has very little to do with 'free'will.

You are being coerced to act contrary to what your conscience is actually inclined to do.

Ah, thank YOU. You would not be the first person I've engaged that said IF THEIR IS NO ETERNAL TORTURE IN FIRE, why I'd just do WHAT I WANTED TO THEN instead...and voila...a picture of what THE THREAT invoked. A mere ACTOR saving his own hide and NOTHING resembling FREEWILL. Just COVERING UP to save their own skins.

I agree with you that, in such a scenario, morality tends to recede to the background.

Unquestionably. The threat of ETERNAL TORTURE IN FIRE is a HUGE coverup for people to HIDE what they may 'really' want or desire to do. The performances that extracted therein are PHONY, SELF SERVING and HYPOCRITICAL.

However, the testimony of Scripture seems to be that all men, including Adam, have a conscience inclined to obey God. Here again, I don’t need much Scripture to support my conclusion.

There are SO many other factors, just a FEW of which were detailed prior that you COMPLETELY overlook. I gave you just the EASIEST examples, such as Paul's DISCOVERY that when he desired to do good that EVIL was present WITH HIM. Now WHERE DID THAT COME FROM and WHY don't you take that INTO VIEW? Are we dealing only with EVIL PAUL or are there other FORCES involved with the desire to DO GOOD? At least THINK ABOUT this one example please before responding. Then I will give your SEVERAL MORE examples of HOW this EVIL transpires, WHO it is from and WHY IT IS AN AUTOMATIC response of EVIL from the scriptures.

To maintain that God was coercing Adam to contradict his conscience would render Him a monster.

ONLY in your LIMITED VIEW. Paul was VERY clear about WHY God made ALL MANKIND subject to disobedience. Yes, God Himself DID THIS and all the 'freewill' in the WORLD will not DIVIDE you or anyone else from what GOD HIMSELF made mankind SUBJECT TO. Start with Romans 11:32. A very fine example of WHY God did this to Adam.

Adam was never slated to earn his way into GOD HIMSELF by some pathetic little moral display. God DEMANDS PERFECTION and only HE can GIVE THAT to any of us. This is NOT something we 'earn' by making positive moral affirmations.

Regardless of whether there was a penalty, Adam was obligated to heed his conscience.

NOT if Adam was MADE A SUBJECT of that working by God. All the CONSCIOUSNESS of Adam would NOT REMOVE that subjectivity. God DELIVERED a LAW...A DEATH PENALTY and made Adam SUBJECT TO disobedience just as God has MADE ALL MANKIND subject to that same DISobedience. Your freewill will NOT be removing of this FACT of God's working IN YOUR OWN FLESH/HEART/MIND. All have sin as a PRESENT TENSE condition. All have SINNED because of the PRESENCE of sin in their MINDS...so SINFUL THOUGHTS are INCLUDED in SINNING.

There is no COVER UP plan for sins in THE HANDS OF MANKINDs freewills, least of all the WHITEWASH of PHONY SELF SERVING ACTORS making performances under threat.

enjoy!

squint

 

[squint]

Who are you to stand in Judgment of God ? God can do what he pleases..

In 'your world' God only does what YOU THINK.

 

[squint]

If anti-creation/Christ aka Darkness is "created" .... than it is by logical necessity a constituent element of God's [A] creation

That is logical.

Not to agree is illogical.

Uh, anti-creation is NOT creation. It's created ANTI-creation. Can your logic understand that?

Go rework your formula and get back to me when you factor that very real working into your various formulas. And don't forget to factor in that WHEREVER The Word is sown THEN Satan, the WICKED ONE comes to the hearts of mankind to STEAL that same WORD out of their hearts, OK?

Oh, and when you SEE that working with eyes of flesh, make sure you give us all a holla.

enjoy!

squint

 

[moonbeam]

Uh, anti-creation is NOT creation. It's created ANTI-creation.

That which is "created"...is by logical necessity part of Creation [Creation equating to those things/elements/principles that are "created"]

This is a logical necessity...end of story.

Can your logic understand that?

Your contention is illogical...hence unintelligible.

Perhaps you can demonstrate your illogical contention in a logical formula....that would be interesting....can you do that?

 

[JAL]

First of all, you are speaking more of moral theology. In that construct man is rewarded for his good decisions and his BAD ONES are overlooked in the name of God given certain 'conditions' being met, i.e. awareness, repentance etc. depending on who is doing the 'formula count.'

SIN is 3 things:

Anything not of faith (which works through LOVE)
Transgression of THE LAW
OF THE DEVIL

Freewillers or moral theology equations are pathetically SHORT on points 2 and 3.

Transgression of THE LAW does NOT consist of merely making GOOD MORAL CHOICES. The Law must be followed PERFECTLY WITHOUT FAIL in order to 'claim' being LAWFUL 'under the Law' which of course HAS NEVER HAPPENED except by GOD HIMSELF in Flesh! So the entire 'moral theology' construct is quite pathetic in its 'replacement' of NOT SINNING under the Law being exchanged for makind GOOD MORAL DECISIONS. A very faulty REPLACEMENT for LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. One does not become a LITTLE MORALLY GOOD for making SOME good moral decisions. The LAW DEMANDS PERFECTION, period. One who breaks the LEAST of the commandments is guilty of BREAKING THEM ALL:

James 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.



NO, ALL mankind are UNJUST because of the PRESENCE OF SIN no matter how much WHITEWASH is put upon THE FACT of SINS EXISTENCE within the flesh/mind/hearts of MANKIND. Moral theology is A GLOSS OVER the FACTS.

I still don't see where you are dealing with the problem of Adam.

According to Rom 5, Adam sinned. (And please don't tell me that the devil 'made' him do it. That wouldn't count as sin).

Any definition of sin other than act of free will, or an act resulting from earlier sin (earlier free free will), seems unintelligible to me.

Until you convince me that you have an intelligible definition of Adam and his sin, I don't see why we should delve into the more complicated issues which you seem to be bringing up.

The entire construct of 'penalty for sins' depends on where you are on the atonement. IF you believe in the sufficiency of THE CROSS for all mankinds SINS (universal/unlimited atonement for mankind,) then punishment for sins of ANY SORT unto mankind is off the table and that includes the penalty for the sin of UNbelief.

There is some logical consistency to this conclusion. Yes, I would have to agree with you that unlimited atonement negates hell. I also agree that "penalty for sins" hinges on this issue. I do not accept unlimited atonement. Nor do I accept limited atonement in the Calvinistic sense. I have my own view of limited atonement.

When I read Revelation, or Mat 3, I seem to find evidence of God's wrath being poured out on mankind. Presently His patience reigns, but int that day His wrath will manifest. When I consider how heinous are the acts of men, it's hard for me to disbelieve in hell. Just my opinion. Not sure that I can really prove this - many of my arguments are addressed to those who already agree with me on this point.

IF there were a penalty phase that is temporal, then there was no need for Jesus to TAKE AWAY the sins of the world as the temporal penalties would simply be invoked at the judgment.

Not sure I follow you. You seem to be saying that if hell is merely temporary, it is unnecessary for Jesus to atone - He could just let them serve their sentence. However, what Father wants their kids to suffer for a million years? A temporary hell doesn't obviate the atonement, by any means.

Duly noted. You are kinder than the majority of your cohorts, only sentencing your fellow man to A MILLIONS years of burning alive forever rather than ETERNITY. Please feel free to insert your favorite form of condemnation if the burning alive in torture doesn't fit.

(Smile). You're funny. And I haven't been entirely clear on this matter. Hellfire is eternal because it is the divine physical Fire. The torment isn't eternal, however. Nor am I entirely certain that the nature of the torment is the application of heat (viz. the burning bush). Each person will suffer according to his measure of sin. (Some people will suffer more, and for a longer duration, than others).

Right! The exercise of FREEWILL was quickly INVOKED by THE GUN and the THREAT to your hide. Has little to do with freewill. So you can see that in THREATENING people with various forms of TORTURE in order to EXTRACT a PERFORMANCE out of them to have them SAVE THEIR HIDES also has very little to do with 'free'will.

I don't know how many times I have to say that free will is a non-negotiable. You've done nothing to convince me that Christian theology can survive without it. Without free will, there is no sin. Period. Don't tell me, "But it's the devil in us doing all the sinning." Sorry, but Scripture seems clear enough that men sin. I'm not going to keep debating this with you. None of us can really "prove" anything from Scripture. Thererfore I merely address my arguments to those who hold particular assumptions. If you and I differ too much on foundational assumptions, I can't even address my arguments to you. Which is to say that I have no way to prove your position wrong. Nonetheless, I disagree with you, based on my current set of assumptions. Understand that for me, epistemology centers on the conscience. Currently I cannot in good conscience claim that I haven't sinned, much less that men at large haven’t sinned.

Ah, thank YOU. You would not be the first person I've engaged that said IF THEIR IS NO ETERNAL TORTURE IN FIRE, why I'd just do WHAT I WANTED TO THEN instead...and voila...a picture of what THE THREAT invoked. A mere ACTOR saving his own hide and NOTHING resembling FREEWILL. Just COVERING UP to save their own skins.

Clearly, that's not what I said. It's precisely what I repudiated. What I said or implied is that Adam’s conscience helped set the stage for a real act of freedom.

The robber who points the gun says, “I will punish you if you don’t hand over the wallet.” The handing over the wallet is not a real act of freedom.

You assume this is likened to God saying, “I will punish you if you don’t obey me.” The resulting obedience cannot be a real act of freedom.

That’s your argument, but it has some problems. First, as I already said, these two scenarios are different. The conscience was already telling you, “Obeying God is the right thing to do.” It was not telling you, “Handing your wallet over to a stranger is the right thing to do.”

Secondly, I don’t care how many different ways you ingeniously come up with to attack the concept of free will, there is little you can do to change my conviction that it is a non-negotiable, for reasons stated.

Thirdly, who are you to decide the motives of the heart? Are you a mind-reader? You imply, where there is a threat of penalty, there cannot be sincere obedience. How do you know? Fact is, until you can read minds, you are only guessing.

Unquestionably. The threat of ETERNAL TORTURE IN FIRE is a HUGE coverup for people to HIDE what they may 'really' want or desire to do. The performances that extracted therein are PHONY, SELF SERVING and HYPOCRITICAL.

I disagree - see my three points just made.

There are SO many other factors, just a FEW of which were detailed prior that you COMPLETELY overlook. I gave you just the EASIEST examples, such as Paul's DISCOVERY that when he desired to do good that EVIL was present WITH HIM. Now WHERE DID THAT COME FROM and WHY don't you take that INTO VIEW? Are we dealing only with EVIL PAUL or are there other FORCES involved with the desire to DO GOOD? At least THINK ABOUT this one example please before responding. Then I will give your SEVERAL MORE examples of HOW this EVIL transpires, WHO it is from and WHY IT IS AN AUTOMATIC response of EVIL from the scriptures.

What has all this got to do with Adam? In the passage you refer to (presumably Rom 6 to 8), Paul is discussing the sinful nature, which didn’t even exist until Adam sinned. Can we get back to Adam, please?

I said that Adam was obligated to heed his conscience. You reply:

NOT if Adam was MADE A SUBJECT of that working by God. All the CONSCIOUSNESS of Adam would NOT REMOVE that subjectivity. God DELIVERED a LAW...A DEATH PENALTY and made Adam SUBJECT TO disobedience just as God has MADE ALL MANKIND subject to that same DISobedience. Your freewill will NOT be removing of this FACT of God's working IN YOUR OWN FLESH/HEART/MIND. All have sin as a PRESENT TENSE condition. All have SINNED because of the PRESENCE of sin in their MINDS...so SINFUL THOUGHTS are INCLUDED in SINNING.

There is no COVER UP plan for sins in THE HANDS OF MANKINDs freewills, least of all the WHITEWASH of PHONY SELF SERVING ACTORS making performances under threat.

Again, I only see two possible forms of behavior.
(1) Determined behavior
(2) Non-determined behavior (what I call free will).

If Adam’s behavior was determined, then he didn’t sin. There is no such thing as sin if all behavior is determined. Therefore Adam had free will. I’m not going to keep debating this idea with you. I see it is a non-negotiable. Anything less would be logically incoherent.

All have SINNED because of the PRESENCE of sin in their MINDS...so SINFUL THOUGHTS are INCLUDED in SINNING.

If there was some “Presence” in Adam’s mind that deterministically caused him to behave as he did, then both Paul and God are liars to call it sin. In my view, the only time that a deterministic action may be called sin is in the case of a deterministic addiction to bad behavior originating in an earlier act of free will (an earlier transgression). Even here, however, I would only loosely use the term "sin".

 

[JAL]

Indeed, Squint, if the devil deterministically caused Adam to behave as he did, then Christ would be atoning for the actions of the devil, not for those of men. In this case, the devil, having been atoned for, would be on his way to heaven, it seems to me.

The biblical evidence favors the idea that Christ atoned for the actions of men, not for the actions of the devil. This implies that men do, indeed, engage in real sin (nondeterministic transgression).

 

[JAL]

Thats because my position is logical......yours is illogical.

The facts in this text reveal God's transcendence over the human paradigm of justice.


And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

You are unable to offer your interpretation of this scripture because it contradicts your false construct of God.

You continue to avoid the truth of God's transcendence over the human paradigm of justice.


Your arguments are based on emotion and illogical conclusions.

(Sigh). I still can hardly believe that you are imposing upon me to do your homework for you. Ok, here we go.

Let's begin with this. As you know, the various books of the Bible are usually arranged in sections. First comes the history books (Genesis to Esther) and then poetry books (Job to Songs).

We have to be particularly hesitant about building a whole theology on poetry, especially when drawing conclusions that seem to contradict the more didactic books such as the NT epistles. And yet that is precisely the sort of thing you are asking me to do here.

You are trying to take the words of this poetry stanza at face value, leading to the conclusion that God caused Satan to tempt Job. This would be in apparent contradiction to James 1:13 which says that God does not tempt anyone.

Interesting that you try to draw a conclusion, based on poetry, that seems to blatantly contradict the didactic epistles, and yet you pretend that the burden of explanation is on me! Shouldn't the burden of proof be on you, as to how to reconcile your insinuations about God with James 1:13, and with the larger body of biblical teaching about the purity and holiness of God?

AnyWho, my hermeneutics does not require me to take poetry literally. Instead I abide by the following principle (originating in my conscience). I try to take all Scripture as literally as possible, except where doing so results in absurdities and/or contradictions.



Therefore I doubt that I need to take this poetic stanza literally. (What a shock! Who knew?). Here's how I would look at it. The word used in the verse is "moveth". I'll assume that's a valid translation.

Suppose you put a starving lion in a cage. On all four sides of the cage - north, south, east, and west - you place food, just outside the cage. The cage has locked gates on every side.

Want to move the lion in a particular direction, specifically to the north? Quite simple. Just unlock the northern gate. In so doing, you moved the lion but only indirectly. You did not directly cause him to behave as he does.

God has never caused Satan to behave as he does. Satan became a hungry, prowling lion - presently addicted to sin - based on his own free choices.

Now that I have done some of your homework for you, could you please try to complete your next homework assignment on your own? If you are unable to figure out the problems, let me know, and maybe I will help you some more. But I'd like to see you put in a little effort on your own.

 

[JAL]

Anticipating your next rejoinder, Moonbeam, I wish to clarify something.

I don't want you to stretch my analogy too far, because that would imply that God is constantly putting food in front of Satan, to tempt him. In this case, God would probably be guilty of temptation.

Therefore I see the need to clarify the larger picture. Lucifer sinned. God has appointed judgment, but that day is not yet here. Until then, God has the option to allow Satan to abide in any geographical location of His choice. He has chosen to allow him to live in this world. One reason to do this is that it may be, in the long run, beneficial to mankind. Do you like going to work every day? I don't. If there were a way to speed things up, to get this whole drama over with, I'd be interested.

And that's how God uses Satan. The economy of redemption, in my view, will come to fruition only when a particular number of free-will decisions have been made in God's favor, in obedience to Him. That's part of why He made us, for His own glory. But this requires just as many temptations (viz. Job). Ordinary circumstances do not always lend themselves to such temptations. Rather than let this whole drama drag on for millions of years, God uses Satan to proliferate the temptations. Satan has to live somewhere, until the day of judgment, so he might as well live here on earth, where God can use him to benefit mankind.

 

[moonbeam]

Anticipating your next rejoinder, Moonbeam, I wish to clarify something.

Clarify this for me....Did the LORD speak these words as recorded in scripture

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

Yes or No?

 

[JAL]

God in Christ a contingency plan then eh? lol God scratches Head and says, well I DUNNO...it COULD happen! Sorry. Chuckling a little over this one.

Even a 'contingency plan' is FOREordained based upon an IF it happened eh?

A contingency plan is not a foreordination. It’s preparation for a possibility whose realization, or lack thereof, isn’t foreknown for certain.

(Smile). Your caricature of God scratching His head is indeed funny but is needlessly irreverent to the austere ramifications of real freedom. Real freedom implies that He isn’t calling all the shots and therefore doesn’t foreknow the final outcome of our decisions.

You say it’s silly for God to say, “I DUNNO.” Really? But in saying this you haven’t addressed a point I made earlier, namely, that if God makes free decisions, each involves a transition from a state of “I DUNNO” to “I DO KNOW.” In otherwords, “I don’t know what I am going to do next because I haven’t decided as yet….Ok, now I’ve decided. Now I do know that I will do next.”

You’ll need to address this argument if you find it a laughing matter for God to say “I DUNNO.”

 

[JAL]

Clarify this for me....Did the LORD speak these words as recorded in scripture

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

Yes or No?

Yes or No? Well, I haven't studied the Hebrew and, even if I did, I couldn't be sure that's what it says (none of us could be 100% sure on that, by the way, including you).

But assuming for the moment, as I did in my last couple of posts to you, that in fact that's what the text says, the words do not imply what you insinuate, for reasons that I provided. If you disagree with my analysis, please address the specifics of my analysis, instead of merely reasserting your conclusion.

 

[themuzicman]

What do you think Paul meant by "all have sinned?"

I mean, there were babes around, even fetal humans, when Paul wrote, "all have sinned."

How do you explain that? Does every fetus sin in the womb, by free will?

Do you think Paul was addressing infant damnation in Romans 3?

Muz

 

[moonbeam]

But assuming for the moment,

There is no room for assumption.

The question requires a Yes or No answer.

The Truth can then be arrived at...for scripture tells us that God can not lie.

That is...if you believe what He speaks.

 

[squint]

A contingency plan is not a foreordination. It’s preparation for a possibility whose realization, or lack thereof, isn’t foreknown for certain.

Open theism SPECULATES that God doesn't know what will transpire in the future. When open theism can prove they know that God doesn't know, then they can tell me what God doesn't know.

(Smile). Your caricature of God scratching His head is indeed funny but is needlessly irreverent to the austere ramifications of real freedom. Real freedom implies that He isn’t calling all the shots and therefore doesn’t foreknow the final outcome of our decisions.

I point out to open theists that no believer can 'rule God' out of the wills of mankind via ANY quantifiable manner. It's simply not possible to eradicate God's Interactions within His Own creation, wills of mankind included.

You say it’s silly for God to say, “I DUNNO.” Really? But in saying this you haven’t addressed a point I made earlier, namely, that if God makes free decisions, each involves a transition from a state of “I DUNNO” to “I DO KNOW.”

Setting forth God's decision making process via some time line throws us back to the problematic presentation of 'this is HOW God makes His decisions' which of course is another guess thrown into the pile with no quantifiable methodology.

In otherwords, “I don’t know what I am going to do next because I haven’t decided as yet….Ok, now I’ve decided. Now I do know that I will do next.”

But you see in your own construct of 'how God asks Himself questions' you have constrained that to an 'at that point in time' because it fits your preconception of HOW God thinks and asks Himself questions. This is part of the problem with ALL theology. We presume that GOD THINKS AND ACTS LIKE US which is assuredly NOT the case. In fact were there any presumption to be made it would be God (we pray) you DON'T think and act LIKE US or what a bloody mess we'll have on our hands in heaven.

You’ll need to address this argument if you find it a laughing matter for God to say “I DUNNO.”

I cannot say to God that He DON'T know...ya know? Let's at least give Him a LITTLE credit.

enjoy!

squint