Question on sovereignty of God

[Rolf Ernst]

To what do you need an answer, orthodoxy?

 

[Jon_]

Why do you guys give such a lame excuse This is a forum where people ask questions and you give answers if you don't have answers don't give me a lame excuse.

Lame excuse, eh? Here are three crippling reasons why your definition of free will cannot possibly be true and why God's holiness is not violated even though he creates/uses evil. This will be the last word I have to say on the matter, so you can spare us all a response. The only reason I post now is for the edification of others, that they might use these same arguments to silence other such deceitful, impious, humanistic outbursts.

Please pay attention to these arguments. You wanted clear, concise answers, and I will give them to you now. Take care to understand them because I won't repeat them and I won't answer any objections. With this post, my obligation is fulfilled. If you yet reject the sovereignty of God, your error is your own and you will be called to give an account for your disobedience.

Objection One

God is omniscient. He knows everything past, present, and future. God is immutable. His divine nature never changes. Therefore, God always has and always will know everything past, present, and future. Because God knows it, it must come to pass, otherwise God could not know it. For example, God knew Christ would be crucified.

God is omnipotent. Anything that can be done, he can do. Because God knows all things and can do all things, it follows that God did not want to spare Christ from being crucified.

God is the Creator. God, through his Son, created all things, and nothing exists that was not created by him. Because God created all things, and knows all things, it follows that he knew Judas would betray Christ, but created him anyway. And since God is omnipotent, he could have prevented Judas from betraying Christ, but he didn't.

Therefore, God knew Christ would be betrayed by Judas. God always knew Judas would betray Christ. God knew it before he even created Judas. Therefore, because God knew it, Judas could not have chosen otherwise! If God knew that Judas would betray Christ before Judas was even born, then it follows that Judas had to betray Christ, otherwise God would either (1) not be omniscient or (2) be a liar, and thus, sinful.

Objection Two

God is not evil because he is righteous and holy. Since God is immutably righteous and holy, he can never be evil. I will now show why God is not evil even though he uses evil and sin to accomplish his will.

You say that God causing evil makes him evil. This is a fallacy of composition that will be demonstrated. I will also show that God cannot sin because he is the Lawgiver and Judge and not subject to sin, for he is above the law.

Evil is the opposite of good. God is good; therefore, he cannot be evil. But God has ordained things that we consider evil, such as killing (1 Chron. 10:14), deceiption (1 Kings 22:22), and the infliction of harm (Job 2:4-6). How can this be? It is very simple. God ordains these things to accomplish his purposes, which are always good. God's intentions for using evil to accomplish his sovereign plan are totally righteous; therefore, he is not evil for doing so. When his creatures work evil, they sin because they have not obeyed God. God requires that they do good and not evil. When God ordains that evil should happen, it is not evil for him to do so, but it is evil for the man to do it because he is forbidden by the law of God to commit evil acts.

You will then object that this just makes men robots. This is a silly, emotional outburst, completely void of any substance. Men are not robots because they are rational, volitional beings made in the image of God. Robots are none of these things. More to the point, God does not hold robots responsible for their actions; therefore, they cannot sin. Sin is the willful transgression of God's law. God's law only applies to mankind. God is not subject to his own law. He is above it. Because God is the omnipotent Creator, he is free to require men to obey his law. If men to not obey his law, he is free to punish them for it.

We see now that God cannot be sinful because he never imputes sin to himself. He is above the law, so he can never transgress against it. Men are subject to the law, though. If they transgress the law, they have sinned. Therefore, when God ordains evil for his own purposes, he does not sin. When God uses the evil that men do to accomplish his own purposes, he imputes sin to them for their transgression of his commandments.

God created Judas for the purpose of betraying Christ to the Pharisees. It can be said that God caused Judas to betray Christ because, since God is the Creator of all things and is omniscient, he knew that Judas would betray Christ, but made him anyway. From this it follows that God knew Judas would betray Christ, but created him anyway, because he wanted Judas to betray Christ. We know this because God does whatever he desires (see Job 23:13, Psalms 115:3; 135:6). Since God created Judas knowing that Judas would betray Christ, it follows that he desired Judas to betray Christ.

And also, as I have already discussed, doing evil and being evil do not go hand in hand. For instance, you have a ham sandwich. A ham sandwich is made from ham, mayo, lettuce, and bread. If you make a ham sandwich, you are a ham sandwich-maker, not a piece of bread. The same goes for evil actions. Evil is a property of something else. It is impossible to do "evil" by itself. You must do something and it must be done in an evil way. For instance, killing is not in itself evil. An evil killing is murder, but not all killing is murderous. This same dynamic applies to everything God does, except the property of evil never attaches to anything God does because nothing he does is evil. The things that men do that are not motivated to glorify God are considered evil by God. It is God declaring them evil that makes them evil. And, of course, since God is completely holy, he never declares that anything he does is evil.

Objection Three

You say that if God causes evil, then he is evil, thus, the only way to avoid this is to say man has free will. It has already been shown that (1) God is not evil even if he causes it and (2) that man does not have free will. I will now demonstrate that your free will argument does not avoid making God the ultimate cause of the evil men cause.

A lifeguard is on duty and he gets a call that there are rip tides off the beach that have been pulling people out to see. He is told that he should get everyone out of the water because they could be pulled out to sea if they are not strong enough to swim out of the rip tides. So, the lifeguard calls this out over the megaphone. Some of the people who hear get out of the water. Some of them don't hear at all. Some of them hear, but ignore him. Now, there are still many people in the water. The lifeguard continues to shout over his megaphone, but they are not hearing him or are ignoring him. The lifeguard then notices a small child being pulled out to sea. He is now frantic. He starts screaming over the megaphone for the child to get out of the water. He is a very strong swimmer and he could surely jump into the water and save the child. But he doesn't. He simply stays on his tower and shouts throught he megaphone. As a result, the child drowns. The lifeguard is clearly responsible for allowing the child to drown. He could have saved him, but he did not.

Another example is that of the person who wanted to commit suicide. He was standing on a bridge threatening to jump. A police officer was there trying to talk the person out of jumping. The person trusted him enough to get right up next to him. The whole time the police officer is saying, "Now, if you want to jump, I'm not going to force you not to because that would be interferring with your free will. But I really don't want you to jump. If you will just reach out your hand to me, I will help you get down." The police officer talks to the man some more, but the man is very distraught. After a few minutes, the man declares that he is going to jump, counts down... 3! 2! 1! and then jumps. The police officer does nothing. Clearly, the police officer is responsible for not pulling the man down by force. His appeal to "free will" here would be nothing more than an excuse for his apathy toward suicidal man. He should have saved him, but he did not.

The examples here are many. Needless to say, you don't escape any responsibility by appealing to "free will." It is nothing but obstreperous human pride and carnal hatred of God's sovereignty that cause men to appeal to free will.

Think this isn't fair? Tough. You were made for God's pleasure and he will do with you whatever he wants. He doesn't need your permission and it doesn't matter if you accept it or not. He is God Almighty and he will do whatsoever he has purposed. If you don't like it then that's too bad. From dust you were made and to dust you shall return. You are nothing but clay in the Potter's hand. As the Lord of hosts has declared, "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me" (Job 38:2, 3 NIV).

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Bob Moore]

Excellent, jon_, thank you.

 

[inchristalone221]

AMEN! THAT WAS JUST TOP-NOTCH! You mind if I save that and quote it?

 

[cygnusx1]

Amazing. You freely admit that there are a number of things about your life that you don't have any choice over, but you cling to fast-food as somehow being the essential proof of free will.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

I sure hope the rep button works !! .................. this thread is great , I am glad I am not on the receiving end of your sword Jon

 

[cygnusx1]

Lame excuse, eh? Here are three crippling reasons why your definition of free will cannot possibly be true and why God's holiness is not violated even though he creates/uses evil. This will be the last word I have to say on the matter, so you can spare us all a response. The only reason I post now is for the edification of others, that they might use these same arguments to silence other such deceitful, impious, humanistic outbursts.

Please pay attention to these arguments. You wanted clear, concise answers, and I will give them to you now. Take care to understand them because I won't repeat them and I won't answer any objections. With this post, my obligation is fulfilled. If you yet reject the sovereignty of God, your error is your own and you will be called to give an account for your disobedience.

Objection One

God is omniscient. He knows everything past, present, and future. God is immutable. His divine nature never changes. Therefore, God always has and always will know everything past, present, and future. Because God knows it, it must come to pass, otherwise God could not know it. For example, God knew Christ would be crucified.

God is omnipotent. Anything that can be done, he can do. Because God knows all things and can do all things, it follows that God did not want to spare Christ from being crucified.

God is the Creator. God, through his Son, created all things, and nothing exists that was not created by him. Because God created all things, and knows all things, it follows that he knew Judas would betray Christ, but created him anyway. And since God is omnipotent, he could have prevented Judas from betraying Christ, but he didn't.

Therefore, God knew Christ would be betrayed by Judas. God always knew Judas would betray Christ. God knew it before he even created Judas. Therefore, because God knew it, Judas could not have chosen otherwise! If God knew that Judas would betray Christ before Judas was even born, then it follows that Judas had to betray Christ, otherwise God would either (1) not be omniscient or (2) be a liar, and thus, sinful.

Objection Two

God is not evil because he is righteous and holy. Since God is immutably righteous and holy, he can never be evil. I will now show why God is not evil even though he uses evil and sin to accomplish his will.

You say that God causing evil makes him evil. This is a fallacy of composition that will be demonstrated. I will also show that God cannot sin because he is the Lawgiver and Judge and not subject to sin, for he is above the law.

Evil is the opposite of good. God is good; therefore, he cannot be evil. But God has ordained things that we consider evil, such as killing (1 Chron. 10:14), deceiption (1 Kings 22:22), and the infliction of harm (Job 2:4-6). How can this be? It is very simple. God ordains these things to accomplish his purposes, which are always good. God's intentions for using evil to accomplish his sovereign plan are totally righteous; therefore, he is not evil for doing so. When his creatures work evil, they sin because they have not obeyed God. God requires that they do good and not evil. When God ordains that evil should happen, it is not evil for him to do so, but it is evil for the man to do it because he is forbidden by the law of God to commit evil acts.

You will then object that this just makes men robots. This is a silly, emotional outburst, completely void of any substance. Men are not robots because they are rational, volitional beings made in the image of God. Robots are none of these things. More to the point, God does not hold robots responsible for their actions; therefore, they cannot sin. Sin is the willful transgression of God's law. God's law only applies to mankind. God is not subject to his own law. He is above it. Because God is the omnipotent Creator, he is free to require men to obey his law. If men to not obey his law, he is free to punish them for it.

We see now that God cannot be sinful because he never imputes sin to himself. He is above the law, so he can never transgress against it. Men are subject to the law, though. If they transgress the law, they have sinned. Therefore, when God ordains evil for his own purposes, he does not sin. When God uses the evil that men do to accomplish his own purposes, he imputes sin to them for their transgression of his commandments.

God created Judas for the purpose of betraying Christ to the Pharisees. It can be said that God caused Judas to betray Christ because, since God is the Creator of all things and is omniscient, he knew that Judas would betray Christ, but made him anyway. From this it follows that God knew Judas would betray Christ, but created him anyway, because he wanted Judas to betray Christ. We know this because God does whatever he desires (see Job 23:13, Psalms 115:3; 135:6). Since God created Judas knowing that Judas would betray Christ, it follows that he desired Judas to betray Christ.

And also, as I have already discussed, doing evil and being evil do not go hand in hand. For instance, you have a ham sandwich. A ham sandwich is made from ham, mayo, lettuce, and bread. If you make a ham sandwich, you are a ham sandwich-maker, not a piece of bread. The same goes for evil actions. Evil is a property of something else. It is impossible to do "evil" by itself. You must do something and it must be done in an evil way. For instance, killing is not in itself evil. An evil killing is murder, but not all killing is murderous. This same dynamic applies to everything God does, except the property of evil never attaches to anything God does because nothing he does is evil. The things that men do that are not motivated to glorify God are considered evil by God. It is God declaring them evil that makes them evil. And, of course, since God is completely holy, he never declares that anything he does is evil.

Objection Three

You say that if God causes evil, then he is evil, thus, the only way to avoid this is to say man has free will. It has already been shown that (1) God is not evil even if he causes it and (2) that man does not have free will. I will now demonstrate that your free will argument does not avoid making God the ultimate cause of the evil men cause.

A lifeguard is on duty and he gets a call that there are rip tides off the beach that have been pulling people out to see. He is told that he should get everyone out of the water because they could be pulled out to sea if they are not strong enough to swim out of the rip tides. So, the lifeguard calls this out over the megaphone. Some of the people who hear get out of the water. Some of them don't hear at all. Some of them hear, but ignore him. Now, there are still many people in the water. The lifeguard continues to shout over his megaphone, but they are not hearing him or are ignoring him. The lifeguard then notices a small child being pulled out to sea. He is now frantic. He starts screaming over the megaphone for the child to get out of the water. He is a very strong swimmer and he could surely jump into the water and save the child. But he doesn't. He simply stays on his tower and shouts throught he megaphone. As a result, the child drowns. The lifeguard is clearly responsible for allowing the child to drown. He could have saved him, but he did not.

Another example is that of the person who wanted to commit suicide. He was standing on a bridge threatening to jump. A police officer was there trying to talk the person out of jumping. The person trusted him enough to get right up next to him. The whole time the police officer is saying, "Now, if you want to jump, I'm not going to force you not to because that would be interferring with your free will. But I really don't want you to jump. If you will just reach out your hand to me, I will help you get down." The police officer talks to the man some more, but the man is very distraught. After a few minutes, the man declares that he is going to jump, counts down... 3! 2! 1! and then jumps. The police officer does nothing. Clearly, the police officer is responsible for not pulling the man down by force. His appeal to "free will" here would be nothing more than an excuse for his apathy toward suicidal man. He should have saved him, but he did not.

The examples here are many. Needless to say, you don't escape any responsibility by appealing to "free will." It is nothing but obstreperous human pride and carnal hatred of God's sovereignty that cause men to appeal to free will.

Think this isn't fair? Tough. You were made for God's pleasure and he will do with you whatever he wants. He doesn't need your permission and it doesn't matter if you accept it or not. He is God Almighty and he will do whatsoever he has purposed. If you don't like it then that's too bad. From dust you were made and to dust you shall return. You are nothing but clay in the Potter's hand. As the Lord of hosts has declared, "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me" (Job 38:2, 3 NIV).

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Excellent post Jon ..................my fav bit ?

"The things that men do that are not motivated to glorify God are considered evil by God. It is God declaring them evil that makes them evil."

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Orthodoxy has his answer.

 

[edie19]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jon_ again.

Do you know how much I hate that message!!!!

Anyhow - once again Jon, you rock. Excellent, excellent post. I'll be sharing with my e-mail buddies.

edie

 

[Jon_]

Hi everyone. Thanks so much for the encouragement. Feel free to "steal" anything you ever see me post if it conforms to the Word of God (and rebuke me when it doesn't). After all, I am nothing but a worm and a piece of clay as any man is. Whatever miniscule bit of merciful knowledge our awesome and mighty Lord happens to bestow upon me I can only rejoice in and praise him for. Is he not loving and gracious to his children? Is he not faithful and merciful toward those that his Son's blood has purchased? Blessed we are to have been granted the knowledge of the truth. For those who understand that the "problem of evil" is not anywhere near being a problem for God, but is a problem for the carnal mind of man, the knowledge of his sovereignty is a wonderful peace and his absolute rule and omnipotence over every aspect of our lives is the most reassuring promise we could ever receive.

Blessed is the name of the Lord who alone is worthy to be praised. He is mighty, sovereign, and full of mercy and grace for those who diligently seek his glory. May we forever persevere in the pursuit of his glory and his alone. Amen.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[heymikey80]

Jon, I appreciate your point. Orthedoxy, I know it doesn't solve the problems but maybe it helps to compare where you're at, with where we're at. We don't claim to have all the answers any more than anyone else, but we do think this is a viable approach to the issues.

I remember reading some philosophers (Jeremy Bentham) pointing out that responsibility is much more complicated an idea than we normally give it credit for. That regularly brings me to a quote from John Calvin, essentially that God wills rightly what we will wrongly -- or more specifically, "... God, by the same will of each nature, accomplished that which He willed righteously, using as the Supreme Good even evil deeds ... For, as far as the former [sinful men] were themselves concerned, they did that which God willed not; but with reference to the omnipotence of God, which could thus bring good out of evil, they could not by any means have willed to do it independently of that Omnipotence. For by the very fact of their acting contrary to the will of God, by that very acting the will of God was done through them." (Eternal Predestination, p. 199 from reformed.org/documents)

Orthedoxy, to us God's will is accomplished through the futility of our own evil wills. For instance, what does it take to bring righteousness to a man? It takes his recognition of his unrighteousness. that sounds like the wrong direction! I mean, how can you bring righteousness out of unrighteousness? Y'can't by any human means, can you? Yet through God's redemption He's made a way for us to become righteous: and it's through our realization that we're not righteous. "The way up is down."

And so God works all creation through this paradoxical path. His good intent is accomplished through our evil intent. His eternal life is accomplished through our mortality. He has set it up this way. It's futile for its own evil ends, yet it shall not fail to reach and end in Him.

At least that's what I think.

 

[cubanito]

Jon your posts on this thread have been extremely well reasoned, in many ways excellent. Incomplete and therefore wrong IMO, but quite cogent within the framework of common sense and Greek inspired logic.

It would be beneficial for me to have you dissect my thoughts, since I'm an a Calvinian.

Let me start with where we (hopefully) agree.

1- From God's point of view, all is predestined
2-Thus by God's choices evil results, He does not commit evil (I prefer to say God does not do something as opposed to can't, but with an immutable God, they lead to indistinguishable effects) Indeed your point about evil being only definable in reference to God is true and, while certainly a well known old Truth, very well presented by you
3- Thus, from God's point of view salvation is an irresistable choice thrust into the human condition, and only thus will any man be saved (except Christ, who being God as well as man, could indeed choose and even earn salvation).

If we do not agree on any of the 3 points above, please let me know.

Now for where we disagree.

God's point of view is not the only view possible. There is another point of view, another reference from where to observe reality, and that is man's. For simplicitie's sake I'll not consider angels or animals. From this temporal viewpoint there really is a choice, and thus God's will can be resisted as to the particular of one's own individual salvation.

Both are true points of view. If you ask what is the ultimate Truth, the ultimate point of view you have just excluded man's perspective altogether. All things ultimate can only be from God's perspective. However if you ask what is the true for me, well I am not God nor ever will be, so for me there is a choice. As I become more like God, that choice becomes less noticeable, but I will never be God, so there will always remain for me a true choice in asking for salvation.

So by now you think I'm a liberal nut spouting relative truth. Maybe, and perhaps you can dissuade me, but I think not. I do not believe in Darwinian evolution, moral "relativity" and do hold to the Bible as inerrant perpiscuity perscacity all that stuff. I've been bouncing these ideas off a lot of conservative Christians for some years now, especially members of the PCA where I'm a member and I can't seem to get a satisfactory answer.

JR

 

[Jon_]

Now for where we disagree.

Incomplete and therefore wrong IMO, but quite cogent within the framework of common sense and Greek inspired logic.

Something that is incomplete is not necessarily wrong. And I don't think that biblical theodicy is "common sense." It is quite antithetical to common sense, but I suppose that begs a definition. I'm a little puzzled by your charge that I use "Greek inspired logic," and your implication that logic is somehow inadequate in these matters. I wonder if you might demonstrate these if there is real substance to the objection.

God's point of view is not the only view possible. There is another point of view, another reference from where to observe reality, and that is man's. For simplicitie's sake I'll not consider angels or animals. From this temporal viewpoint there really is a choice, and thus God's will can be resisted as to the particular of one's own individual salvation.

Both are true points of view.

If you mean the proposition that there are two different points of view, then yes, the proposition is definitionally true, and therefore, tautological. If you mean two different truths follow from the two different points of view, then there is great difficulty with this position.

If you ask what is the ultimate Truth, the ultimate point of view you have just excluded man's perspective altogether.

"Ultimate" is an unnecessary adjective for "truth," as truth is ultimate and absolute. Moreover, the assertion that this excludes man's perspective is fairly weak. In the first, it begs the question. Why is man's perspective consequential at all? And this demands a definition of "perspective." Secondly, how does this exclude man's perspective? A demonstration is needed.

All things ultimate can only be from God's perspective.

"Ultimate" screams for a definition here. I'm not sure at all what you mean by this. In any case, the assertion demands a demonstration.

However if you ask what is the true for me, well I am not God nor ever will be, so for me there is a choice. As I become more like God, that choice becomes less noticeable, but I will never be God, so there will always remain for me a true choice in asking for salvation.

This starts to make more sense in context. Let me see if I understand you correctly, as I have no desire to misrepresent you (thus the request for definitions and demonstration of your points). Do you mean that, according to man's perspective, he has a choice? If so, then I agree with you. According to my perspective, I made the choice to respond to your post. And you may similarly choose to respond to me. I certainly do not argue with that. It's completely true. Any volitional act of man is by definition a choice. It is the first cause of that choice that we are discussing. Christian theology demands that God be the first cause of everything, else, he would not be omnipotent. Therefore, man is the second cause (secondary causes as discussed in the Westminster Confession) of God's plans, that is, man is the agent through which God works out his plans.

So by now you think I'm a liberal nut spouting relative truth.

No, not really. Relativism says that truth is relative. For instance, your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth. For me, the proposition two and two are four is true, but perhaps you don't believe it; and therefore, it is false for you. This view must necessarily conclude in the denial of any truth, for if something is not necessarily true, it is not true. Necessity is a property of truth and it is assumed in the definition. The more proper term, and the one I believe you used correctly, is perspective. Perspectives are not true, but they are separately existant interpretations. That is, your perspective is not my perspective, but neither of our perspectives yield truth. They are that by which we perceive truth, but they have no inherent truth qualities.

Maybe, and perhaps you can dissuade me, but I think not. I do not believe in Darwinian evolution, moral "relativity" and do hold to the Bible as inerrant perpiscuity perscacity all that stuff. I've been bouncing these ideas off a lot of conservative Christians for some years now, especially members of the PCA where I'm a member and I can't seem to get a satisfactory answer.

I would suggest to you that God alone is true and the source of all truth. I would further suggest that we can and do make choices, innumerable ones everyday. I would also agree with your statement that our perceptions are subjective. I would encourage you to understand that truth is not affected by our perceptions, though. Our perceptions are the conduit by which we receive truth, but they do not alter it in any fashion--or, if they do, they distort it and make it false.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cubanito]

Before responding to the particulars, allow me to thank you for this intercourse. I have progressed more by thinking on your words than upon anybody elses (excluding books, and of course The Book). If I can do anything for you, email of PM me. Please stick with me, you are helping.

Jon- Something that is incomplete is not necessarily wrong.

Me- Yes, that is very near the heart of my thoughts.

Jon- And I don't think that biblical theodicy is "common sense." It is quite antithetical to common sense, but I suppose that begs a definition.

Me- Common sense is indeed a poor choice of words. Predestination is not antithetical to the system of logic that was developed until the mid 1800’s, and still typically taught as absolute truth today. Actually given that system of logic, predestination necessarily follows from an omniscient omnipotent immutable God.

Jon- I'm a little puzzled by your charge that I use "Greek inspired logic," and your implication that logic is somehow inadequate in these matters. I wonder if you might demonstrate these if there is real substance to the objection.



Me- Put simply, there is no single system of human logic that is completely true, even as an ideal. We can NOT think as God thinks. No wait, you don’t understand, we really really really can’t think as God thinks.

The logical system typically taught today through undergraduate is indeed derived from Greeks such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Euclid. It has undergone refinement (for example some of Aristotle’s syllogisms have been shown false), but it is a historical descendant of Greek philosophy. Calling it “logic” is based on an assumption that is it the only valid system of thought. That notion has crashed. Euclid’s fifth postulate was proven unnecessary (a matter of preference) in the mid 1800’s, leading to non-Euclidian geometries. Godel’s 2 incompleteness theorems published in 1931 demolished all hope for a human monolithic logical system. If you are familiar with what I’m saying, great. If not you can either read online or I can post stuff right here. The best link I’ve found for a technical discussion of these issues is Wikipedia. The best presentation by a Christian is by Dan Graves in http://www.rae.org/essay_author.html (the whole site is just superb, IMO). I await your pleasure, shall I post reams of stuff, or would you prefer to agree that there is no such thing as absolutely true systematic human logic?


Jon= If you mean the proposition that there are two different points of view, then yes, the proposition is definitionally true, and therefore, tautological. If you mean two different truths follow from the two different points of view, then there is great difficulty with this position. "Ultimate" is an unnecessary adjective for "truth," as truth is ultimate and absolute. Moreover, the assertion that this excludes man's perspective is fairly weak. In the first, it begs the question. Why is man's perspective consequential at all? And this demands a definition of "perspective." Secondly, how does this exclude man's perspective? A demonstration is needed. "Ultimate" screams for a definition here. I'm not sure at all what you mean by this. In any case, the assertion demands a demonstration.


Me- As always, we’ve got to hammer out definitions. 1- I am quite content with using your definitions, if you allow me to question you until a sufficient precision to the words for me is reached. 2-Alternatively, I can define and you badger me. 3- A general dictionary will not do, though if you point to some mathematical or other sufficiently rigorous dictionary of your choice I will accept it. You can then either post definitions from it or refer me to a link. I’ll even buy whatever book you want me to. Tell me how you want to proceed on definitions. I like using the shorthand Truth for that which is available to God, and truth for what we may come to understand from general revelation (nature).


Jon-This starts to make more sense in context. Let me see if I understand you correctly, as I have no desire to misrepresent you (thus the request for definitions and demonstration of your points). Do you mean that, according to man's perspective, he has a choice? If so, then I agree with you. According to my perspective, I made the choice to respond to your post. And you may similarly choose to respond to me. I certainly do not argue with that. It's completely true. Any volitional act of man is by definition a choice.

Me- Yes, we agree on the above. Excuse my bumbling way to make the point, but yes, that above is exactly on target!

Jon- It is the first cause of that choice that we are discussing. Christian theology demands that God be the first cause of everything, else, he would not be omnipotent. Therefore, man is the second cause (secondary causes as discussed in the Westminster Confession) of God's plans, that is, man is the agent through which God works out his plans.



Me- Without a doubt God is the first cause, the ultimate cause, the absolute frame of reference, the Creator…

BUT I contend that we can NOT discuss that first cause (God) without radically abandoning our thought processes and logical systems. Not that God is illogical, rather that any logical system we can conceive is necessarily incomplete, and thus inapplicable to God. Like trying to use a cup to contain the ocean. Note that I use the plural for logic. A simple demonstration, since you ask is the following three mathematical statements, all true: 1+1=1 1+1=2 1+1=10 Each is true given a different mathematical system. The first is true in finite mathematics where 1 is maximal. The second is the typical base 10 infinite math we commonly employ on paper. The third is base 2 (binary) mathematics such as the neurons of your peripheral nervous system and the CPU of this computer uses (what your brain uses is a bit less certain, though fascinating, not germane). Each mathematical system is applicable to certain problems, but not to all. Each is coherent and self referential, and most importantly as Godel proved, each is necessarily undefinable at some point. Put another way, all of man’s reasoning is necessarily circular. Believe me, this is huge blow to the hubris of the godless. Essentially, without a transcendant Being, there is no hope of any definite truth



Jon- no not really. Relativism says that truth is relative…



Me- Relativism is diametrically opposed to “The Theory of The Invariate” as proposed by Einstein. I am not interested in relativism, it is an amorphous term for all manner of idiocy. It was Newtonian theory where everything was relative. Einstein wanted to call his theory the theory of the invariate, and was irritated that because of historical reasons it became known as a theory of relativity. The whole core of modern relativity is that there’s one, and only one, absolute frame of reference: that of an observer traveling at the speed of light. Again, we need to come to an agreement on semantical terms, especially over “truth”. Unlike Pilate, I’m in earnest. From my understanding there is only one Absolute Truth, which we can not attain, but which discrete statements can be revealed to us (at His pleasure). There is however another truth, that of the non-Eternal. They are not contradictory, but each is relevant only to a different perspective.



Jon- I would suggest to you that God alone is true and the source of all truth. I would further suggest that we can and do make choices, innumerable ones everyday. I would also agree with your statement that our perceptions are subjective. I would encourage you to understand that truth is not affected by our perceptions, though. Our perceptions are the conduit by which we receive truth, but they do not alter it in any fashion--or, if they do, they distort it and make it false.

Me- We are very close to agreement, yet not quite. Let me end by quoting two sources:



From Protestant Biblical Interpretation by Bernard Ramm @1970, third revised edition, 5th printing 1/2004 (sofcover) by Baker Books, p.169 “The exegetical and systematic theologian seek to determine the content of divine revelation. The philosophical theologian is the watchdog and detective. He keeps his eye on contemporary philosophy and the developments there and their possible relationship to Christian theology for good or evil. He scans the science writers to see the implications and importance of contemporary science for the Christian faith…The Church needs both the exegetical and philosophical theologian and she suffers when she is want of either.”



(From the Argument section of Genesis).

“For men are commonly subject to these two extremes; namely, that some, forgetful of God, apply the whole force of their mind to the consideration of nature; and others, overlooking the works of God, aspire with a foolish and insane curiosity to inquire into his Essence. Both labor in vain. To be so occupied in the investigation of the secrets of nature, as never to turn the eyes to its Author, is a most perverted study; and to enjoy everything in nature without acknowledging the Author of the benefit, is the basest ingratitude. Therefore, they who assume to be philosophers without Religion, and who, by speculating, so act as to remove God and all sense of piety far from them, will one day feel the force of the expression of Paul, related by Luke, that God has never left himself without witness, (Acts 14:17.) For they shall not be permitted to escape with impunity because they have been deaf and insensible to testimonies so illustrious. And, in truth, it is the part of culpable ignorance, never to see God, who everywhere gives signs of his presence. But if mockers now escape by their cavils, hereafter their terrible destruction will bear witness that they were ignorant of God, only because they were willingly and maliciously blinded. As for those who proudly soar above the world to seek God in his unveiled essence, it is impossible but that at length they should entangle themselves in a multitude of absurd figments. For God — by other means invisible — (as we have already said) clothes himself, so to speak, with the image of the world in which he would present himself to our contemplation. They who will not deign to behold him thus magnificently arrayed in the incomparable vesture of the heavens and the earth, afterwards suffer the just punishment of their proud contempt in their own ravings. Therefore, as soon as the name of God sounds in our ears, or the thought of him occurs to our minds, let us also clothe him with this most beautiful ornament; finally, let the world become our school if we desire rightly to know God.”

 

[Jon_]

Common sense is indeed a poor choice of words. Predestination is not antithetical to the system of logic that was developed until the mid 1800’s, and still typically taught as absolute truth today. Actually given that system of logic, predestination necessarily follows from an omniscient omnipotent immutable God.

I think you might be a little confused as to what logic is. You are speaking here of symbolic logic somehow eclipsing term logic. That hasn't happened, no matter what the mathematicians tell you. Symbolic logic is a mathematized system of the rules of valid inference. There is one change in particular that makes it inferior to term logic as well. Russell, when he was working on symbolic logic (which was invented by George Boole and De Morgan), discovered that subalternation was not supported by it. Boole's concept was to make logic mathematically consistent and useful.

Russell's failure was that he invented an artificial language to accompany symbolic logic. (This artificial language was even refused by his disciples, e.g. Wittgenstein, who were seriously interest in the philosophy of language. Wittgenstein rejected that he had faithfully preserved language.) Russell reduced A(ab) to a<b (All a is b to class a is included in class b). This definition makes subalertination impossible (for instance, A(ab) < I(ab)). This is really based on a bad "translation" of the English all to symbolic all. The meaning of all was not faithfully observed. This definition of Russell's, being more restrictive and entirely arbitrary, can simply be ignored. Since Russell's symbolic logic is based on the same axioms (but with different definitions) and same laws (the laws of logic) as term logic, it follows that he did not invent a new "logic," but a new system. Please try to understand this distinction because it is one that has caused great confusion for people. They think that we now work with polylogics, but we do not. All forms of logic that maintain any semblance of the 24 valid syllogisms must bow to term logic and the traditional formulation. Even trying to contradict this requires that you use logic to do so. It is inescapable.

(Also, see Clark's treatment of this subject in his Logic, pp. 78-85.)

Me- Put simply, there is no single system of human logic that is completely true, even as an ideal.

How do you know that? I'm sorry, but that's nothing more than an assertion. Can you demonstrate it?

We can NOT think as God thinks. No wait, you don’t understand, we really really really can’t think as God thinks.

I understand that we cannot think as God thinks, for our thoughts are sequential and God's are not. Nevertheless, that does not mean that there is no univocal element between God's thoughts and our thoughts. Logic, for example, is one of those univocal elements. If there is no univocal element between God's thoughts and ours, we cannot be saved. For if the proposition, "Christ died for our sins," is true in God's mind, it cannot be true in ours, for then that would be a thought with univocal truth. But thankfully, God created us with rational minds that are capable of understanding an extremely small portion of his thoughts.

The logical system typically taught today through undergraduate is indeed derived from Greeks such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Euclid.

What is "the logical system typically taught today"? Socrates never talked about logic. Plato simply alluded to it in Protagoras; it is doubtful he had a codified understanding of what we call "logic." Aristotle systematized it, but his syllogisms only contained three terms because he failed to realize that syllogisms could be statements of identity. That is, Aristotle thought all middle terms had to be greater or lesser in the major term. This is not the case (see Clark, Logic, p. 80). A syllogism with a middle term is a perfectly valid syllogism, but one that did not fit into Aristotle's empirical philosophy, so he dropped it. The medieval logicians realized that Aristotle's three terms were arbitrarily restrictive (shades of Russell) and that the froms of necessary inference permit, indeed demand, four terms.

If Euclid wrote on logic I am ignorant of it. What I do know Euclid wrote on is geometry. His system of geometry logically followed from his axioms, but his axioms were entirely arbitrary. This is made poignantly clear when we see how the denial of the parallel postulate results in hyperbolic geometry. Euclid was not a logician, he was geometrician.

It has undergone refinement (for example some of Aristotle’s syllogisms have been shown false), but it is a historical descendant of Greek philosophy.

First objection: Which ones? Second objection: Aristotle's system was incomplete.

Calling it “logic” is based on an assumption that is it the only valid system of thought. That notion has crashed.

This is just an assertion. Care to present any evidence to that effect?

Euclid’s fifth postulate was proven unnecessary (a matter of preference) in the mid 1800’s, leading to non-Euclidian geometries.

Yes, that's correct. So what? Euclidean geometry has absolutely no bearing on the valid forums of inference. Elucidean geometry depends on logic, not the other way around. If Euclid was wrong, it does not follow that logic is wrong. That's one of the basic truth of logic (A(ab) does not imply A(ba)).

Godel’s 2 incompleteness theorems published in 1931 demolished all hope for a human monolithic logical system.

Many people are confused about what Gödel actually proved. Gödel proved that if your system can count, it is either incomplete or inconsistent. It only applies to mathematical systems. Logic is not mathematical, it is formal. The only thing that Gödel proved impossible is the total melding of math and logic. That is why term logic is and always has been superior, even supreme.

If you are familiar with what I’m saying, great. If not you can either read online or I can post stuff right here. The best link I’ve found for a technical discussion of these issues is Wikipedia. The best presentation by a Christian is by Dan Graves in http://www.rae.org/essay_author.html (the whole site is just superb, IMO). I await your pleasure, shall I post reams of stuff, or would you prefer to agree that there is no such thing as absolutely true systematic human logic?

I think the problem is that you know just enough about these concepts to allow them to trip you up. I was confused at these proofs originally, as well. I thought I had to go out and learn mathematical logic because that is what the modern logicians think is ideal. A good text book on term logic with a short section critiquing mathematical logic will break you of that idea, though. It's really nothing more than deceptions and propaganda that has snuck its way into the back of your mind. The mathematical logicians have blundered and they're trying to recover from their blunders by simply deriding all other systems. Why, symbolic logic can't even handle an empty class. This is seemless for term logic.

What needs to be emphasized is logic is formal, not mathematical. Math is based on logic, not the other way around.

Me- As always, we’ve got to hammer out definitions. 1- I am quite content with using your definitions, if you allow me to question you until a sufficient precision to the words for me is reached. 2-Alternatively, I can define and you badger me. 3- A general dictionary will not do, though if you point to some mathematical or other sufficiently rigorous dictionary of your choice I will accept it. You can then either post definitions from it or refer me to a link. I’ll even buy whatever book you want me to. Tell me how you want to proceed on definitions. I like using the shorthand Truth for that which is available to God, and truth for what we may come to understand from general revelation (nature).

I would simply suggest being on the lookout for terms that could be equivocal or phrases that could be ambiguous.

BUT I contend that we can NOT discuss that first cause (God) without radically abandoning our thought processes and logical systems. Not that God is illogical, rather that any logical system we can conceive is necessarily incomplete, and thus inapplicable to God. Like trying to use a cup to contain the ocean. Note that I use the plural for logic. A simple demonstration, since you ask is the following three mathematical statements, all true: 1+1=1 1+1=2 1+1=10 Each is true given a different mathematical system. The first is true in finite mathematics where 1 is maximal. The second is the typical base 10 infinite math we commonly employ on paper. The third is base 2 (binary) mathematics such as the neurons of your peripheral nervous system and the CPU of this computer uses (what your brain uses is a bit less certain, though fascinating, not germane). Each mathematical system is applicable to certain problems, but not to all. Each is coherent and self referential, and most importantly as Godel proved, each is necessarily undefinable at some point. Put another way, all of man’s reasoning is necessarily circular. Believe me, this is huge blow to the hubris of the godless. Essentially, without a transcendant Being, there is no hope of any definite truth.

Again, you are confused about what logic is. Logic is formal and is unaffected by changes in base. Logic is concerned only with the operations of arithmetic, not with the results. In the examples you gave, you are equivocating something awful and your arguments are totally invalid.

First of all, the meaning of "1" changes in each base. In that, you equivocate. Secondly, the meaning of addition (+) must remain the same in all bases. If it does, then the answer to the problem follows necessarily from the premises (1 + 1 = 2). Logic does not deal with premises, only inferences.

Me- Relativism is diametrically opposed to “The Theory of The Invariate” as proposed by Einstein. I am not interested in relativism, it is an amorphous term for all manner of idiocy. It was Newtonian theory where everything was relative. Einstein wanted to call his theory the theory of the invariate, and was irritated that because of historical reasons it became known as a theory of relativity. The whole core of modern relativity is that there’s one, and only one, absolute frame of reference: that of an observer traveling at the speed of light. Again, we need to come to an agreement on semantical terms, especially over “truth”. Unlike Pilate, I’m in earnest. From my understanding there is only one Absolute Truth, which we can not attain, but which discrete statements can be revealed to us (at His pleasure). There is however another truth, that of the non-Eternal. They are not contradictory, but each is relevant only to a different perspective.

You misunderstood me. I am talking about relativism, not relativity. Relativism is the philosophical school of thought that says truth is relative, as I layed out in my last post. Your paragraph here misses the point.

From Protestant Biblical Interpretation by Bernard Ramm @1970, third revised edition, 5th printing 1/2004 (sofcover) by Baker Books, p.169 “The exegetical and systematic theologian seek to determine the content of divine revelation. The philosophical theologian is the watchdog and detective. He keeps his eye on contemporary philosophy and the developments there and their possible relationship to Christian theology for good or evil. He scans the science writers to see the implications and importance of contemporary science for the Christian faith…The Church needs both the exegetical and philosophical theologian and she suffers when she is want of either.”

I deny that science has any implication or importance to the Christian faith. Rather, science is submissive (or ought to be) to Christian faith. I don't necessarily agree with what Ramm says here, but I don't necessarily agree with it either (notwithstanding the prior comment. It is true that Christianity needs both scholars and philosophers, but I would submit we are all philosophers on some level. To even think begs a whole series of presuppositions as to what one should think.

(From the Argument section of Genesis).

“For men are commonly subject to these two extremes; namely, that some, forgetful of God, apply the whole force of their mind to the consideration of nature; and others, overlooking the works of God, aspire with a foolish and insane curiosity to inquire into his Essence.

That would certainly be true of mystics. On the other hand, if we always confine ourselves to God's revelation, his infallible Scriptures, then we shall never impiously consider his essence. He has revealed himself for the purpose of being known. And we should certainly strive to know him.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cubanito]

Thank you Jon. I need to go learn the difference between term logic and mathematical logic. When I shall find the time to do so, being the sole monetary provider for the 6 of our nuclear family, that may well be in months to years. I do not grant that you are correct, but rather that I don't know enough. Fortunately we may have all eternity to learn more, you and I.

Again thank you, and to God indeed be all Glory.

JR

 

[orthedoxy]

I've been away from my computer Happy new year everyone.

Lame excuse, eh? Here are three crippling reasons why your definition of free will cannot possibly be true and why God's holiness is not violated even though he creates/uses evil. This will be the last word I have to say on the matter, so you can spare us all a response. The only reason I post now is for the edification of others, that they might use these same arguments to silence other such deceitful, impious, humanistic outbursts.

Please pay attention to these arguments. You wanted clear, concise answers, and I will give them to you now. Take care to understand them because I won't repeat them and I won't answer any objections. With this post, my obligation is fulfilled. If you yet reject the sovereignty of God, your error is your own and you will be called to give an account for your disobedience.

I never said I reject the sovereignty of God just your view of it.

Objection One

God is omniscient. He knows everything past, present, and future. God is immutable. His divine nature never changes. Therefore, God always has and always will know everything past, present, and future. Because God knows it, it must come to pass, otherwise God could not know it. For example, God knew Christ would be crucified.

God is omnipotent. Anything that can be done, he can do. Because God knows all things and can do all things, it follows that God did not want to spare Christ from being crucified.

God is the Creator. God, through his Son, created all things, and nothing exists that was not created by him. Because God created all things, and knows all things, it follows that he knew Judas would betray Christ, but created him anyway. And since God is omnipotent, he could have prevented Judas from betraying Christ, but he didn't.

Therefore, God knew Christ would be betrayed by Judas. God always knew Judas would betray Christ. God knew it before he even created Judas. Therefore, because God knew it, Judas could not have chosen otherwise! If God knew that Judas would betray Christ before Judas was even born, then it follows that Judas had to betray Christ, otherwise God would either (1) not be omniscient or (2) be a liar, and thus, sinful.

The Catholic Church have declared anathema to anyone that says God caused Judas to betray Jesus.
The reason you reject my view is because you don’t understand it. I don’t believe God foreknew Judas betrayal of Jesus before he created him. From our point of view God knew before Judas was born that he would betray him, from Gods point of view he created him then Judas betrayed Jesus. God doesn’t foreknows he knows. God doesn’t foreordain our salvation he simply ordains from our point of view he fore does it but he simply ordains.
I’ll give you an example. God ordained our salvation yet according to Matt 25:31-end
It says he will judge each person according to what they have done. This means salvation is happening after we live our live, it happens at the time of the second coming yet God has preordained our salvation from our point of view.
It’s like declaring the lakers as the NBA champions because he knows the future. With salvation it’s more then knows but also God initiates our salvation we respond God saves. He gets the credit for saving.

Objection Two

God is not evil because he is righteous and holy. Since God is immutably righteous and holy, he can never be evil. I will now show why God is not evil even though he uses evil and sin to accomplish his will.

You say that God causing evil makes him evil. This is a fallacy of composition that will be demonstrated. I will also show that God cannot sin because he is the Lawgiver and Judge and not subject to sin, for he is above the law.

Evil is the opposite of good. God is good; therefore, he cannot be evil. But God has ordained things that we consider evil, such as killing (1 Chron. 10:14), deceiption (1 Kings 22:22), and the infliction of harm (Job 2:4-6). How can this be? It is very simple. God ordains these things to accomplish his purposes, which are always good. God's intentions for using evil to accomplish his sovereign plan are totally righteous; therefore, he is not evil for doing so. When his creatures work evil, they sin because they have not obeyed God. God requires that they do good and not evil. When God ordains that evil should happen, it is not evil for him to do so, but it is evil for the man to do it because he is forbidden by the law of God to commit evil acts.

You will then object that this just makes men robots. This is a silly, emotional outburst, completely void of any substance. Men are not robots because they are rational, volitional beings made in the image of God. Robots are none of these things. More to the point, God does not hold robots responsible for their actions; therefore, they cannot sin. Sin is the willful transgression of God's law. God's law only applies to mankind. God is not subject to his own law. He is above it. Because God is the omnipotent Creator, he is free to require men to obey his law. If men to not obey his law, he is free to punish them for it.

We see now that God cannot be sinful because he never imputes sin to himself. He is above the law, so he can never transgress against it. Men are subject to the law, though. If they transgress the law, they have sinned. Therefore, when God ordains evil for his own purposes, he does not sin. When God uses the evil that men do to accomplish his own purposes, he imputes sin to them for their transgression of his commandments.


God created Judas for the purpose of betraying Christ to the Pharisees. It can be said that God caused Judas to betray Christ because, since God is the Creator of all things and is omniscient, he knew that Judas would betray Christ, but made him anyway. From this it follows that God knew Judas would betray Christ, but created him anyway, because he wanted Judas to betray Christ. We know this because God does whatever he desires (see Job 23:13, Psalms 115:3; 135:6). Since God created Judas knowing that Judas would betray Christ, it follows that he desired Judas to betray Christ.

And also, as I have already discussed, doing evil and being evil do not go hand in hand. For instance, you have a ham sandwich. A ham sandwich is made from ham, mayo, lettuce, and bread. If you make a ham sandwich, you are a ham sandwich-maker, not a piece of bread. The same goes for evil actions. Evil is a property of something else. It is impossible to do "evil" by itself. You must do something and it must be done in an evil way. For instance, killing is not in itself evil. An evil killing is murder, but not all killing is murderous. This same dynamic applies to everything God does, except the property of evil never attaches to anything God does because nothing he does is evil. The things that men do that are not motivated to glorify God are considered evil by God. It is God declaring them evil that makes them evil. And, of course, since God is completely holy, he never declares that anything he does is evil.

You are saying God is a liar, murderer and child molester but does not sin because he is above the law and he is the one that declares what is sin when he does it it’s not sin but he hate us when we do what he does or what he made us to do. This is none sense.
I would agree God does what he wants but it’s not in his nature to lie or murder.

Objection Three

You say that if God causes evil, then he is evil, thus, the only way to avoid this is to say man has free will. It has already been shown that (1) God is not evil even if he causes it and (2) that man does not have free will. I will now demonstrate that your free will argument does not avoid making God the ultimate cause of the evil men cause.

Read Genesis chap. 1 and chap 2 and tell me which day he created evil?
The bible says everything that God created he saw it was good.

A lifeguard is on duty and he gets a call that there are rip tides off the beach that have been pulling people out to see. He is told that he should get everyone out of the water because they could be pulled out to sea if they are not strong enough to swim out of the rip tides. So, the lifeguard calls this out over the megaphone. Some of the people who hear get out of the water. Some of them don't hear at all. Some of them hear, but ignore him. Now, there are still many people in the water. The lifeguard continues to shout over his megaphone, but they are not hearing him or are ignoring him. The lifeguard then notices a small child being pulled out to sea. He is now frantic. He starts screaming over the megaphone for the child to get out of the water. He is a very strong swimmer and he could surely jump into the water and save the child. But he doesn't. He simply stays on his tower and shouts throught he megaphone. As a result, the child drowns. The lifeguard is clearly responsible for allowing the child to drown. He could have saved him, but he did not.

Sure the lifeguard would be responsible from that point of view but this is not my view.
My view would be the lifeguard gets many other people to go out and warn all the people. The people or the lifeguard can’t force the people out but only warn them.
Calvinist view would make the lifeguard is able to force people out but he chooses to force only one person and tell the other person you deserve to die. This makes Calvinist view of God as cruel and not loving.

Another example is that of the person who wanted to commit suicide. He was standing on a bridge threatening to jump. A police officer was there trying to talk the person out of jumping. The person trusted him enough to get right up next to him. The whole time the police officer is saying, "Now, if you want to jump, I'm not going to force you not to because that would be interferring with your free will. But I really don't want you to jump. If you will just reach out your hand to me, I will help you get down." The police officer talks to the man some more, but the man is very distraught. After a few minutes, the man declares that he is going to jump, counts down... 3! 2! 1! and then jumps. The police officer does nothing. Clearly, the police officer is responsible for not pulling the man down by force. His appeal to "free will" here would be nothing more than an excuse for his apathy toward suicidal man. He should have saved him, but he did not.

This only proves the Calvinist view of God as being unjust and cruel.
If God could force that person not to jump and doesn’t do it then he would be cruel not to force him not to jump.
Your view shows the police officer actually pushing the guy off the bridge and others he forces not to jump.

My question would be how can God be loving or just when he forces some not to jump
The examples here are many. Needless to say, you don't escape any responsibility by appealing to "free will." It is nothing but obstreperous human pride and carnal hatred of God's sovereignty that cause men to appeal to free will.

Think this isn't fair? Tough. You were made for God's pleasure and he will do with you whatever he wants. He doesn't need your permission and it doesn't matter if you accept it or not. He is God Almighty and he will do whatsoever he has purposed. If you don't like it then that's too bad. From dust you were made and to dust you shall return. You are nothing but clay in the Potter's hand. As the Lord of hosts has declared, "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me" (Job 38:2, 3 NIV).

Soli Deo Gloria

I don’t see how you can blame the programmer of the robot for what the robot does and not blame God for what man does? It just doesn’t make sense.
Your point of view doesn't escape the fact that God caused evil and therfore is evil.
God will do whatever he wants but his nature compels him to love us and be just from our point of view. Love could only means one thing, he is either loving or not. He is either just or unjust

 

[inchristalone221]

The Catholic Church have declared anathema to anyone that says God caused Judas to betray Jesus.

This deluded sap just warned a reformed theologian that he was anathema in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. I will not stop laughing for the rest of today.

The Roman church has anathematized me and everyone else in SR so many times that I don't feel like counting.

As for his rather repetitive and weak arguments against God's sovereignty...

I'll leave this to Jon as he is doing a magnificent job without any help (besides, he'll put it better than I would).

 

[orthedoxy]

This deluded sap just warned a reformed theologian that he was anathema in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. I will not stop laughing for the rest of today.

The Roman church has anathematized me and everyone else in SR so many times that I don't feel like counting.

As for his rather repetitive and weak arguments against God's sovereignty...

I'll leave this to Jon as he is doing a magnificent job without any help (besides, he'll put it better than I would).

I know Calvinist don't care about historic Christian doctorine but why do you guys only consider Pelagius to be bad?
The teaching that God caused Judas to betray Jesus was condemnd the same way Palagius was.

 

[cubanito]

Calling people deluded saps because of a weak argument aint cool, IMO.

orthedoxy, Pelagius was so way off base that you have to move into extremely liberal groups like the Quackers or Unitarians to find any adherants. Arminius was far more restrained, and watever one thinks of the Arminian position (also called semi-pelagian), it would be a fairer counterpoint to Reformed theology. Myself, I'm a calvinian, which means that I believe both the Arminian position of free choice and the Reformed position of Luther and Calvin to be both true (present day Lutherans actually follow more Luther's succesor Melanchthon than the actual Luther in regards to Sovereignty).

Someone like me may well be accused of being illogical, and until I've more time to assess my understanding of what Jon calls "term logic", I will not argue the point further.

I just wanted to point out that Pelagius was way off the mark, and not accepted by most any conservative group I know of (including the RC, if that matters to anyone).

JR

 

[heymikey80]

The Catholic Church have declared anathema to anyone that says God caused Judas to betray Jesus.

The church has erred, errs, and continues to err.

The reason you reject my view is because you don’t understand it. I don’t believe God foreknew Judas betrayal of Jesus before he created him. From our point of view God knew before Judas was born that he would betray him, from Gods point of view he created him then Judas betrayed Jesus. God doesn’t foreknows he knows. God doesn’t foreordain our salvation he simply ordains from our point of view he fore does it but he simply ordains.

The term "oriso" means "ordain" or "designate" in NT Greek. Scripture has another term: "prooriso". Care to guess what that term means?

I’ll give you an example. God ordained our salvation yet according to Matt 25:31-end
It says he will judge each person according to what they have done. This means salvation is happening after we live our live, it happens at the time of the second coming yet God has preordained our salvation from our point of view.
It’s like declaring the lakers as the NBA champions because he knows the future. With salvation it’s more then knows but also God initiates our salvation we respond God saves. He gets the credit for saving.

One wonders why God would get credit for checking into what others may do. What you've described is very, very similar to the position of a guy by the name of Arminius in the early 1600's.

And yes, we understand that view.

You are saying God is a liar, murderer and child molester but does not sin because he is above the law and he is the one that declares what is sin when he does it it’s not sin but he hate us when we do what he does or what he made us to do. This is none sense.
I would agree God does what he wants but it’s not in his nature to lie or murder.

Clearly you don't understand us; not vice versa.

Read Genesis chap. 1 and chap 2 and tell me which day he created evil?
The bible says everything that God created he saw it was good.

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him." Col 1:16

Or are you saying sin doesn't exist?

Sure the lifeguard would be responsible from that point of view but this is not my view.
My view would be the lifeguard gets many other people to go out and warn all the people. The people or the lifeguard can’t force the people out but only warn them.
Calvinist view would make the lifeguard is able to force people out but he chooses to force only one person and tell the other person you deserve to die. This makes Calvinist view of God as cruel and not loving.

This only proves the Calvinist view of God as being unjust and cruel.
If God could force that person not to jump and doesn’t do it then he would be cruel not to force him not to jump.
Your view shows the police officer actually pushing the guy off the bridge and others he forces not to jump.

So it's not cruel to just let the blind flail around blindly while you have the power and the ability to save them? Hm. Interesting. Does God delight in flailing?

I don’t see how you can blame the programmer of the robot for what the robot does and not blame God for what man does? It just doesn’t make sense.
Your point of view doesn't escape the fact that God caused evil and therfore is evil.
God will do whatever he wants but his nature compels him to love us and be just from our point of view. Love could only means one thing, he is either loving or not. He is either just or unjust

Oh, it makes perfect sense. The programmer in this case has an unassailably good intent. God actually assumes the responsibility, and indeed corrects for what sinful things we do in creation. It was called the Crucifixion. He accomplishes His good and perfect will even using evil against itself. And then He hands down the responsibility.

He assesses direct responsibility.

Btw, your God causes evil, too. He can't escape your logic. By giving people "free will", your God has invited them to do evil in His perfect creation, and given them the capacity to do so again and again. He has the power to prevent it. The Last Judgement shows He has the right to prevent it. He's programmed the Fall just as surely as if He designed it into Creation. Either way your logic is inexorable: God caused evil.

If He hadn't created us, there wouldn't be evil in His creation. So He caused evil. He had the capacity to prevent it, and yet He didn't.

Of course I disagree with your logic of responsibility, so I deny it. But I find your logic quite persuasive given your assumptions. In your view God must have caused evil, must be responsible for it, and thus must be evil thereby.

In my view, God wills rightly what we will wrongly. So without evil motive, I can't find fault with God.

But what's your logic on the matter?