 |
 | 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/18/2006 11:28 PM (GMT -6) |   |
Sir_Edward said...
knowing they will reject him for certain God -- in hypothetical here -- could have NOT created those who will not acknowledge him as lord and savior. But that would not be love.
SE, notice the fact that I cut short what you said, to not suggest that God condemns. C.S.Lewis points us to reflect that hell is a prison locked on the inside.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
jasonlevene
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 40
| Posted 5/19/2006 4:08 AM (GMT -6) | | | Wait a second Sir Edward...God creates a world where the fall is a possiblity rather than an inevitability yet the Israelites freedom from Egypt he declared an inevitability rather than a possibility? Where is the logic in a God who would raise heaven and earth to free a tribe from enslavement but did nothing to prevent Adam and Eve from condemning all of humanity into sin and death? And again, if you make the fall a possibility rather than an inevitability, then you place Jesus' suffering and death squarely at the feet of God who could have prevented it by intervening in the Adam Eve serpent account just as he intervened in hardennig the Pharaoh's heart. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Pentz
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 59
| Posted 5/19/2006 6:50 AM (GMT -6) | | | In the case of "intervening" with Adam and Eve, that would prove that God is an all controlling diety that allows no freadom to his creation. Why would God create a world where he does not allow his creation to reject him? Also, in the case of Israel, I believe that God was takeing a certain group of people in order for them to be a light of the one true God. God knows all possibilities and he knew that the fall could occur. | | Back to Top | | |
|
jasonlevene
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 40
| Posted 5/19/2006 10:02 AM (GMT -6) | | If intervening with Adam and Eve would have proven God to have been an 'all controlling deity' that allowed no freedom to his creation, then why did God 'intervene' in freeing the Israelites? You can not have it both ways. If God was going to remain neutral and allow his greatest creation to destroy themselves, then why raise heaven and earth to free a tribe for Egyptian enslavement? If God had put half as much effort into preventing Adam and Eve from sinning as he did in freeing the Israelites, then he would've saved himself the time and trouble of freeing the Israelites down the line. And again, if God had put half as much effort into preventing Adam and Eve from sinning as he did in freeing the Israelites, then Jesus Christ excruciating suffering and death on the cross would have been wholly unnecessary. So God, by his allowing Adam and Eve to sin but preventing Egypt from continuing to enslave the Israelites, killed his own son in the most excruciating way possible. If I were Jesus on the cross I'd be asking God: why didn't you stop this way back when? Do you see how illogical this is?
I should tell you that I myself do not believe God limited his omniscience to preserve humankind's free will. I believe God's plan from the beginning was all about Jesus Christ and thus required Adam and Eve's sin and failure. This way, just as Paul says in Romans 9:22-23, God's purpose was to make his glory and power manifest through the failures of those destined for failure. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 5/19/2006 12:28 PM (GMT -6) | | "I should tell you that I myself do not believe God limited his omniscience to preserve humankind's free will. I believe God's plan from the beginning was all about Jesus Christ and thus required Adam and Eve's sin and failure. This way, just as Paul says in Romans 9:22-23, God's purpose was to make his glory and power manifest through the failures of those destined for failure."
That's pretty sadistic.
If you want to see discussion on things like hardening hearts, that's where many open theists would talk about character solidification. It is NOT the open theist position that every human action is undetermined and free. I'm an open theist and I personally believe that most activity in the universe and most human activity is determined before it happens.
There is plenty of precident in the Bible of God's passive activity being described in the active voice. Especially in the prophets there is the idea that invading armies are the judgment of God. Military agression (especially against the Jews) is not something you need divine intervention to explain. But there is truth in saying that the armies of evil countries are in a sense bringing about the judgment of God. This is most clearly talked about in Habakkuk and Isaiah.
There are other examples (especially in the Old Testament) of the active voice describing God's passive allowance. This does make som sense though. God is the most able, most powerful. When he chooses not to act, it is a big deal. When he allows Pharoah to harden his own heart through the sinful activity described in the first chapters of Exodus, he might as well be actively hardening it. God has the ultimate power in all matters. So if God's allowance allows an army to invade or a king's heart to be hardened, it might actually be better to emphasize his Almightiness than to get into the philosophical technicalities of who actively willed certain events. This is what the Bible does in much of the Old Testament. There are plenty of contradictions and techincally nonsensical statements. But the Old Testament was not meant to be read through the filter of a philosophy textbook.
Pharaoh hardened his own heart. God's sovereignty allows us speak of any event as established by God. This type of speech conveyes important truth. It is the kind of ( "poetic" ) speech found in much of the Old Testament. But had Pharoah not hardened his heart, we have no reason to believe that God would have hardened it for him.
On a side note, the Calvinistic (as it is commonly understood) emphasis on the glory of God is so overstated that it leaves no room for the love of God. In the Calvinistic world, everything is already determined. People just act out their scripts, they just perform the actions that they are programmed to perform. It's not that this makes the Calvinistic God unloving. It's just that in the Calvinistic world there is no one for God to love. There is no one there to love God back. Everyone is a programmed robot. Maybe some of the robots act like they love or even think they love, but they are merely doing what they must do. Humans love the way a rock falls. There is no itimacy there. Furthermore, there is no morality there. God makes me in such a way that I must sin, then he punishes me for it. That is glorious? Hardly.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 5/19/2006 12:32:06 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
jasonlevene
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 40
| Posted 5/19/2006 4:44 PM (GMT -6) | | [QUOTE] It is NOT the open theist position that every human action is undetermined and free.
You see this is the whole point of this thing...every human action must be undertermined and free or else God is responsible for the excruciating death of his own son. You see, if God had intervened in the garden of Eden half as much as he did in Egypt, Jesus' death would've been unnecessary. There would have been no sin to redeem us from. So again, God, by raising heaven and earth to free the Israelites yet remaining absent during Adam and Eve's sin, killed his own son.
But if every human action is not undetermined and free [as I believe that God knows all things past present and future], then the foundation and purpose of all things isn't free will, it's Jesus Christ. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/20/2006 2:05 PM (GMT -6) | |
jasonlevene said...
[QUOTE] It is NOT the open theist position that every human action is undetermined and free. Forget for a moment that this has anything to do with theology, or philosophy.
Keep it to "pedagogy" -- effective teaching/rraining.
I hope we all know that to make EVERYTHING a matter of free choice is ineffective -- like t-ball for high school age. Too simple and nothing learned. You gotta have them batters get some suprise pitches once in a while, and even some unhittable ones! And, follow that up with my hope that we all know that to make everything a matter of determination ia nuts too. Good pedagogy uses a mix, but does so all within a framework that recognizes the necessity of will and action, but which requires it to take shape and become character.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Torkuda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 34
| Posted 5/20/2006 4:46 PM (GMT -6) | | As far as forcing the will of Pharoh
http://www.biblicalanswers.com/predestination/Hardening%20Pharaohs%20Heart.htm
First off, as far as the predestination view goes, lets get straight the real definition of sadism. A sadist is one who enjoys the suffering of others. NO, a sadist is not an idividual with confused priorities, but instead is pure evil, generally intentionally causing pain because it arouses or causes some other form of enjoyment.
If there is nothing God cannot do, then there is no limit on His power aside from His desires. Then, if God pre-planned the future, it was only ever subject to His desire. Basically, this all implies God wanted and enjoys evil, after all, He's not stopping it, and there's really nothing stopping Him from doing so. After all, He started it, pre-meditated it, forced it, could have stopped it but didn't, planned it, caused it, assisted it, permitted it (isn't it Calvinists who say Satan acts with God express permission?)... you get the point don't you?
What I really don't understand is why Open Theist insist God created the world to be artifically the way it is. In other words, God doesn't know the future, even though He could, because He thought it was a good idea to not know.
There is some point in questioning, if God could have predestined, why didn't He? Essentially, with Omnipotence still being fully acknowledged, the only real answer is, because He didn't want to. To say anything else would imply God has limits. With the theology of omnipotence in place, it appears Open Theism can be just as sadistic as Calvinism.
God then, is the author of Chaos. He could have made everything perfect, and sacrificied nothing (after all, to quote a common arguement, if there were something He couldn't do, He wouldn't be God) in process. He could have still had genuine love from His subjects, without suffering and pain to prove it, but decided He'd like to see blood instead, or in this case, the possibility of it.
I say free willed beings are the only creatures capable of true love, but this is at odds with any theology that says nothing is impossible for God, since under my reasoning, the reason God didn't create beings who could not choose evil, and yet still choose true love, is because such cannot be done.
Is anyone open to re-evaluating the theology of Omnipotence and our interpretation of scripture based on it? Is it not possible that the context of verses supposedly proving omnipotence is actually confused? (Lets be honest, it really is extremely rare in ANY language at ANY time for ANY one to say in a fully intentional literal way, "nothing is impossible" though the phrase itself isn't rare at all. Probably over 90% of the time, its meant figuratively or expressively.)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/21/2006 5:51 PM (GMT -6) | | |
First, the idea that God limits His knowledge is not Scriptural; it's conjecture. Further, how does an omnisicent being limit His knowledge about something without knowing about that something He's limiting? Further, how does this omniscient being limit His knowledge about ONLY a particular something without missing something else that is quite important? It's just not an accurate adduction to conclude that God limits His knowledge. It's not only inaccurate, but it is nnecessary.
JASONLEVENE: Wait a second Sir Edward...God creates a world where the fall is a possiblity rather than an inevitability yet the Israelites freedom from Egypt he declared an inevitability rather than a possibility? Where is the logic in a God who would raise heaven and earth to free a tribe from enslavement but did nothing to prevent Adam and Eve from condemning all of humanity into sin and death? And again, if you make the fall a possibility rather than an inevitability, then you place Jesus' suffering and death squarely at the feet of God who could have prevented it by intervening in the Adam Eve serpent account just as he intervened in hardennig the Pharaoh's heart.
STARKMAN: Let me read back to you what I'm hearing you say: Because God delievered Israel from Egypt and didn't deliver Adam and Eve from falling into sin, God is guilty for the blood of Jesus, and the Open View is false.
Though I can appreciate your working through this, I think you need to first give some consideration to the idea that you are not presenting any objection that Open Theists have not already heard. Second, you haven't yet told us what you believe God was going on when He created the world? Was He predestining? Does He have exhaustive foreknowledge of all that will happen with His creation? It would be helpful if you would tell us your theological position about God's foreknowledge, particularly as it obtains to His act of creation.
Let me that it is logically not sound to say that Open Theism is false because God delivered Israel but not Adam and Eve. First, the Open View is about freewill, and a contradiction obtains when one says God has exhaustively settled foreknowedge of the future. (Note, indeed, God does have exhaustive foreknowledge of the future, just not exhaustively settled forknowledge of the future; the former meaning all the future is known, which includes that part that is open; the latter meaning everything...EVERYTHING is known, whether by determinism or simple foreknowledge.) So, what's the problem with God having given man the right to choose whether He will listen or not listen to God, and then for God to rescue some people from the muck and mire due to the Adam and Eve not listening? Are you saying that God should not have rescued any of us, or are you saying that God should have made it impossible for Adam and Even to sin? If that is what you are saying, would be you mind telling us exactly how God would have done that without destroying freewill?
Finally, if God knew that it was possible that Adam and Eve (or their one of their offspring) would fall--I'm sure God was very aware of how probable the fall was--but He has created man with freewill, and He has created man to enjoy relationship with both God and others via love as the driving force, it is of no guilt upon God for Jesus being willing to die for us. I mean, don't you make decisions, sometimes on a daily basis, to do something good for someone else, regardless of how that person got into his/her predicament? And in doing so, is someone else other than the person in crisis at falt?
The issue of Christ's death has nothing to do with guilt being on the Father or the Open View being false.
JASONLEVENE: You see this is the whole point of this thing...every human action must be undertermined and free or else God is responsible for the excruciating death of his own son. You see, if God had intervened in the garden of Eden half as much as he did in Egypt, Jesus' death would've been unnecessary. There would have been no sin to redeem us from. So again, God, by raising heaven and earth to free the Israelites yet remaining absent during Adam and Eve's sin, killed his own son.
STARKMAN: Here again, Jason, you're just not making valid logical conclusions. Here's what I hear you saying: If every human action is not undetermined (thus free), God would be guilty of Christ's blood. And this is because the world would have had no need for Christ if God intervened in the Garden, but since God did not intervene in the Garden, but did intervene with Israel, God is guilty of killing His son.
First, God didn't have to raise "heaven and earth" to deliever Israel. I think that kind of language adds a bit more to the scenario than is warranted. your logic here, Jason, can't even be followed. I don't mean that disrespectufully, but it's the truth.
Listen, let's keep things simple here: God desires relationship with man, but He desires it based on man having freewill, particularly in the area of choosing to love as a vehicle to relate to both God and others. Now, in a context like this, it is absolutely impossible for God to know what man will do. The very nature of creation proves this. That's why freewill is our reality and not determinism or exhaustively settled foreknowledge.
God knows (exhaustively) some of the future as settled by simple foreknowledge (e.g., that He will forever be God), some of the future is settled by divine decree (Christians will live forever with God), and some of the future as undecided; it is "open." God knows ALL of the future exactly as it is. God is omniscient. He does not limit His knowledge and He does not forget, and He can handle it all quite well not knowing from eternity past what I will do exactly....EXACTLY (WITH EVERY IOTA OF DETAIL INCLUDED) come Jan 14, 2010...if I'm even alive.
As to Omnipotence...
Probably one of the easiest ways a Christian can get himself/herself in trouble with non-Christians is by trying to prove that God knows everything...EVERYTHING with absolutely no exceptions, and that God can do anything...ANYTHING with no exceptions. If the Christian would only think about what he/she is saying by inforcing omnipotence and omniscience to mean absolutely everything, well, it would be less embarrassing.
Can God make square circles and married bachelors? Of course not. In other words, God cannot do illogical things. (These illogical things aren't real or possible things, but they fall under the classification of being nouns.) And how about the old standby: can God make a rock so big that He cannot lift it? This isn't immediately illogical. After all, God is a person (though He is Spirit), and a rock is a physical thing. So, what the person asking this question wants to know is if a spirit can make a physical thing so big that even the spirit cannot pick it up. Sounds like a fair question, and the answer is...no! "Ah," says the critic, "Your God is not omnipotent. If he were, he would be able to lift the rock. But then he would still not be omnipotent, because he can always lift the rock, he cannot make something so heavy that he cannot pick it up." My reply: So what?
Hey, if God has to be able to make rocks so big He can't pick them up, or He can but then He can't make things so big...whatever, then find a god who fits the bill. Otherwise, let's just stick with omnipotence, as far as it pertains to the Biblical God, to mean that God can do anything that is not illogical and outside of the character of what defines Him as the Biblical God (being able to create a rock so big that even He cannot lift it is not something that defines God as God).
Now, take this same logic and apply it to omniscience. Here again, does God know everything...EVERYTHING? Well, He most certainly does not know what it is like (first hand) to be evil. He doesn't know what it is like to be immoral. For that matter, He doesn't even know what it is like to not be God. He can't but be God He is...another one of those anti-omnipotent things! Heavens, there are a whole host of things God does not know, some He couldn't know even if He wanted to. But, again, let's not force omnicience to include the illogical or things that are outside of the essence of what it means for God to be able to know (God knowing what it is like firsthand to be evil is not one of those things that is of the essence of what it means for God to be God). Once again, if someone absolutely insists that they will only settle for omniscience to mean that God must know everything...EVERYTHING, then fine. Find one who fits the bill.
Well, time's up.
Thanks much,
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
jasonlevene
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 40
| Posted 5/21/2006 8:14 PM (GMT -6) | | |
STARKMAN: So, what's the problem with God having given man the right to choose whether He will listen or not listen to God, and then for God to rescue some people from the muck and mire due to the Adam and Eve not listening? Are you saying that God should not have rescued any of us, or are you saying that God should have made it impossible for Adam and Even to sin? If that is what you are saying, would be you mind telling us exactly how God would have done that without destroying freewill?
JASON: Don’t you see Starkman, for God to intervene in the free will decision making process of Pharaoh yet do nothing during the free will decision making process of Adam and Eve makes no sense. You’ve asked how God could have stopped Adam and Eve from sinning without destroying free will…well how is it that God literally raised heaven and earth to compel Pharaoh to free the Israelites without destroying free will. Scripture even asserts that it was God who hardened the Pharaoh’s heart. Is that free will? This open theist I am debating had the nerve to claim that both Moses AND Paul were mistaken…that it wasn’t God who hardened Pharaoh’s heart but Satan. Needless to say, I told him I was going to take the bible’s word over his for obvious reasons.
Now you have to ask yourself this question: if free will is so important to God, why did he stand back and do nothing while Adam and Eve freely chose to destroy all of humanity while he literally raised heaven and earth AND hardened the Pharaoh’s heart to compel him to free the Israelites. What is wrong with that picture? And you say it is of no guilt upon God for Jesus being willing to die for us…have you heard of Gethsemane? Jesus was sweating blood contemplating his death on the cross…a death that God could have prevented by raising heaven and earth as he did in Egypt to prevent Adam and Eve from sinning.
Jesus condemned the blind leading the blind yet you have God allowing Adam and Eve to freely destroy all of humanity while hardening Pharaoh’s heart to free a small tribe from enslavement. Sorry but either God is schizophrenic or the whole free will concept is in error.
STARKMAN: God knows (exhaustively) some of the future as settled by simple foreknowledge (e.g., that He will forever be God), some of the future is settled by divine decree (Christians will live forever with God), and some of the future as undecided; it is "open." God knows ALL of the future exactly as it is. God is omniscient. He does not limit His knowledge and He does not forget, and He can handle it all quite well not knowing from eternity past what I will do exactly....EXACTLY (WITH EVERY IOTA OF DETAIL INCLUDED) come Jan 14, 2010...if I'm even alive.
JASON: The question is whether our free will decisions fit within the realm of logic and truth. God can do anything, including creating a rock so heavy that he can not lift it but because it does not fit within the realm of logic and truth he will not. That would be my answer to all the perplexing questions…it’s not that he can not…he will not. But for God to know all the future decisions of mankind does not fall outside the realm of logic and truth…it is not an implausible notion. But according to the open view, it is implausible because God values free will so much so that he can not know our decisions until we make them. And as I said above, if free will were so vital to God, why would he allow Adam and Eve to ‘freely’ destroy all of humanity yet he raises heaven and earth AND hardens Pharaoh’s heart to free a small tribe of Israelites? Jesus condemned the Pharisees for straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel and to me, God did just this by his inactivity in Eden as opposed to Egypt. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/21/2006 9:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Jason, one possibility you might be overlooking is that the Fall might have effectually OCCURRED at the time that Satan decided to usurp the authority of God. If this is so, then "raising heaven and earth" to warn Adam & Eve would not have substantially changed the FallNESS of the created order. For Satan is more powerful and order-destroying, ultimately, than humans.
Thus, so long as God did not intend to prevent Satan from influencing the world, the human part of the Fall may not be the most important. In that case, what needs explaining is why God didn't bind Satan.
I think the open theist can posit a reasonable answer to this. For example, God may find that Christ's ultimate glorification is maximized by having Christ both crush the head of the serpent and work redemption rather than by simply "binding" or destroying every volitional creature that tries to defy God OR by creating anew (which would be a concession that His purpose for our creation was trumped by a mere creature).
This way, God's love for Christ is perfected by maximally glorifying him. And yet nothing in this scenario is inconsistent with openness. Or at least I'm not SEEING how it would be.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 5/21/2006 9:49:43 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/22/2006 6:10 AM (GMT -6) | | | Hey there, Jason,
You're asserting and you're asking questions back as a response to questions I've asked you. That isn't answering.
I asked you what's the problem with God having given man the right to choose whether He will listen or not listen to God, and then for God to rescue some people from the muck and mire due to the Adam and Eve not listening? You responded, "for God to intervene in the free will decision making process of Pharaoh yet do nothing during the free will decision making process of Adam and Eve makes no sense." That's not an explanation. You just don't understand it, that's all. I need more than that.
I also asked you to tell us what you believe, how God would have done creation without destroying freewill. You never answered. You merely replied by asking another question, "You’ve asked how God could have stopped Adam and Eve from sinning without destroying free will…well how is it that God literally raised heaven and earth to compel Pharaoh to free the Israelites without destroying free will."
Finally, nothing you have brought up disproves the Open View. It just means you have question with no answers yet. But those questions are not going to be solved by asking more questions without answering my first ones.
As to your belief that God can defy logic and do the impossible (such as making a rock so big that He cannot pick it up...so, you DO believe that God could make a rock so big that He cannot lift it up, correct? I mean, that's what you are saying when you said, "God can do anything, including creating a rock so heavy that he can not lift it but because it does not fit within the realm of logic and truth he will not. That would be my answer to all the perplexing questions…it’s not that he can not…he will not."
So God is NOT ominipotent in your view; He CAN make a rock so big He cannot lift Himself. Merely because He chooses not do to make the rock does not solve anything, because according to your belief, God cannot do something. Do you also believe then that God cease to be God? Can God become evil? Can He make 2+2=456? I mean, these are no less actions of omnipotency that God must also be able to do, as I see it, if you're going to insist that God can make a rock so big that He cannot pick it up. Scripture says that God cannot lie? (May I also point out also, Jason, that you have only asserted God can do illogical things. You have not proved it. Quoting Scripture isn't going to help you either.)
Jason, the reality is that just as we do not need to push omnipotence to include being able to do things that are illogical and ungodly, neither do we have to push omniscience to include having to know these same things.
1) What's the problem with God having given man the right to choose whether He will listen or not listen to God, and then for God to rescue some people from the muck and mire due to the Adam and Eve not listening? Otherwise, you will be in an inescapable contradiction: If you believe that God can do anything--I mean anything and everything, no exceptions--you will constantly find yourself boxed into contradictions of which you will find no escape.
2) Give us your idea of how God created without destroying freewill (or do you believe man has no freewill?). Explain Pharoah, if you would, as an instance of God NOT destroying freewill, or as an instance of God destroying freewill.
3) Defend how God cannot do something and still be omnipotent (this only has to be answered if you insist on p
Let's first tackle these questions.
Thanks,
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us?Post Edited (Starkman) : 5/22/2006 6:32:41 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
jasonlevene
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 40
| Posted 5/22/2006 9:05 PM (GMT -6) | | |
STARKMAN : I asked you what's the problem with God having given man the right to choose whether He will listen or not listen to God, and then for God to rescue some people from the muck and mire due to the Adam and Eve not listening? You responded, "for God to intervene in the free will decision making process of Pharaoh yet do nothing during the free will decision making process of Adam and Eve makes no sense." That's not an explanation. You just don't understand it, that's all. I need more than that.
JASON: Starkman didn’t you read the rest of my response? For God to raise heaven and earth to compel Pharaoh to release the Israelites while standing by and doing nothing as Adam and Eve freely chose to destroy all of humanity is absolute lunacy. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel and for God to think that freeing a tribe from enslavement is more vital than the destruction of his greatest creation puts God in that category. Tell me Starkman, where is the logic in that?
STARKMAN: I also asked you to tell us what you believe, how God would have done creation without destroying freewill. You never answered. You merely replied by asking another question, "You’ve asked how God could have stopped Adam and Eve from sinning without destroying free will…well how is it that God literally raised heaven and earth to compel Pharaoh to free the Israelites without destroying free will."
JASON: Starkman, you asked how God would have made it impossible for Adam and Even to sin without destroying freewill and my response to you was that just as God sent plague after plague to Pharaoh to compel him to release the Israelites, he could have done something to compel Adam and Eve to freely choose not to sin. I’m not saying he needed to force them not to sin…what I’m saying is he could’ve done something to set them back on the right path as he did to set Pharaoh on the right path in releasing the Israelites. Just think Starkman, as I said before, if God had shown half as much of his power in Eden as he did in Egypt, Jesus’ death would have been wholly unnecessary.
STARKMAN: So God is NOT ominipotent in your view; He CAN make a rock so big He cannot lift Himself. Merely because He chooses not do to make the rock does not solve anything, because according to your belief, God cannot do something. Do you also believe then that God cease to be God? Can God become evil? Can He make 2+2=456? I mean, these are no less actions of omnipotency that God must also be able to do, as I see it, if you're going to insist that God can make a rock so big that He cannot pick it up. Scripture says that God cannot lie? (May I also point out also, Jason, that you have only asserted God can do illogical things. You have not proved it. Quoting Scripture isn't going to help you either.)
JASON: You know I just realized something writing this post. The bible never uses the words ‘omniscient’ or ‘omnipotent’ so what are we talking about here? Jesus said God is truth and our world is governed wholly by the truth. So is God limited in his power and knowledge? I say yes…God’s power and knowledge are limited solely to what is the truth. 2+2=456 thus isn’t the truth and thus it is something God can not know. Married bachelors, God becoming evil, God creating a stone he can not pick up: all of these are not the truth and thus fall outside of the realm of God’s knowledge and power. So yes I concede that there are limits to God’s power and knowledge: those limits being what is truth.
STARKMAN: Jason, the reality is that just as we do not need to push omnipotence to include being able to do things that are illogical and ungodly, neither do we have to push omniscience to include having to know these same things.
JASON: But here is where you err Starkman…how is God knowing our future decisions illogical and ungodly? Have you considered that it is the truth for God to know all our decisions ahead of time? The problem is you equate 2+2=456 to God knowing our decisions ahead of time when there is no justification for you to do so. There is no conflict in God knowing everything in the future.
STARKMAN: 1) What's the problem with God having given man the right to choose whether He will listen or not listen to God, and then for God to rescue some people from the muck and mire due to the Adam and Eve not listening?
JASON: The simple answer: God by not acting in Eden as he did in Egypt called for the brutal excruciating death of his own son. As I said above, he didn’t have to force Adam and Eve to not sin. They were obedient in the beginning [Genesis 3:3] until they believed Satan’s lie so all he had to do was show some power to put them back on the right path. He did not and Jesus had to brutally die as the result. Here again is my question to you Starkman: if free will is so vital to God, why would he allow Adam and Eve to freely destroy themselves and all humanity but then intervene so greatly in Egypt to compel Pharaoh to free a relatively small tribe of Israelites. Tell me which you think is the greater priority that demanded the greater action from God.
STARKMAN: 2) Give us your idea of how God created without destroying freewill (or do you believe man has no freewill?). Explain Pharoah, if you would, as an instance of God NOT destroying freewill, or as an instance of God destroying freewill.
JASON: Man does have freewill in that he is responsible for his own actions but just because God knows the decisions we make before we make them, doesn’t mean we aren’t responsible for making them. To me, all things have their purpose in Jesus Christ…from the creation of Adam and Eve to the resurrection. And just as Paul says, God uses the wicked decisions of the wicked to show his glory to the righteous [Romans 9:22-23]. So to explain my beliefs, God created Adam and Eve fully aware that they would sin because without their sin, there would’ve been no Jesus Christ to redeem us from that sin. Jesus Christ’s death thus was necessary for the exhibition of God’s great power and was thus not preventable as the Open view holds it.
STARKMAN: 3) Defend how God cannot do something and still be omnipotent…
JASON: See my answer above… J | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 5/22/2006 11:11 PM (GMT -6) | | JASON: Starkman, you asked how God would have made it impossible for Adam and Even to sin without destroying freewill and my response to you was that just as God sent plague after plague to Pharaoh to compel him to release the Israelites, he could have done something to compel Adam and Eve to freely choose not to sin. I’m not saying he needed to force them not to sin…what I’m saying is he could’ve done something to set them back on the right path as he did to set Pharaoh on the right path in releasing the Israelites. Just think Starkman, as I said before, if God had shown half as much of his power in Eden as he did in Egypt, Jesus’ death would have been wholly unnecessary.
J.N.Darby wrote: Theoretically, God could easily have prevented Adam and Eve from sinning: He could have never placed a forbidden tree in the Garden to begin with; He could have placed the tree, but surrounded it with impenetrable barriers; He could never have given them a commandment to begin with, and thus nothing to violate.
But God did none of these things. He planted a certain tree in the midst of the garden, and specfically commanded "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." This command, in and of itself, is surely enough warning and authority (display of power) to "compel Adam and Eve to freely choose not to sin." It's like pointing out the warning sign on an electric fence. So what if the Serpent told them something contrary? All they had to do was remember what their Creator had said to them - why need He repeat Himself? Why should God have to send Exodus-style signs to Adam and Eve to try to prevent them from following their own heart's desires - and further reinforce the lie of the Serpent, that God was merely lying to Adam and Eve in order to keep them from something truly great?
Obviously God could have prevented them from sinning. Obviously He could have made the question of sin a moot point, by not placing a forbidden object within man's reach. But He didn't. Does this then mean that God wanted man to sin, as suggested by your statement, "God created Adam and Eve fully aware that they would sin because without their sin, there would’ve been no Jesus Christ to redeem us from that sin. Jesus Christ’s death thus was necessary for the exhibition of God’s great power and was thus not preventable as the Open view holds it." ? The Lord forbid that we should think of Him as double-minded! "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand." If God commands against sin, yet at the same time desires sin to occur, He is a "kingdom divided against itself", and He could not be called "the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning."
But there is also a mistake in thinking that "freewill" is a goal in and of itself - that it is of such a high priority to God that He would never interfere with anybody's freewill. Both freewill (Adam and Eve's in particular), and the situation in the Garden, served the same purpose - for God to ascertain, by means of testing and observing the actual actions taken, what Man would actually do with the choices presented to him: 1) obey God and thus demonstrate his love for God, 2) disobey God and thus demonstrate his judgment of God [For by his disobedience, Adam judged God to be a liar, not worthy of his trust and obedience]. It seems obvious to me that God's purpose was to test Man, and to see what their actual choices would be; thus, Man was not physically restricted from the forbidden tree, but was nonetheless clearly warned to not eat from it, lest they die. God did not compel Man to sin, nor did He compel Man to not sin; He wanted to see what Man would actually do with their choices.
Pharaoh and the Exodus situation is an altogether different equation. God already knew what was in the Pharaoh's heart, having witnessed his actions, his exercise of his freewill, over the course of his lifetime; there was thus no test involved, nothing to ascertain by observation of choices made in the present. Thus this presented a situation in which God could use strong-arm tactics to compel human decisions, because the desired outcome was not to test anyone, but to release the Hebrews from Egyptian tyranny, persecution, and enslavement. | | Back to Top | | |
|
jasonlevene
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 40
| Posted 5/23/2006 9:41 AM (GMT -6) | | JOHN N DARBY: Both freewill (Adam and Eve's in particular), and the situation in the Garden, served the same purpose - for God to ascertain, by means of testing and observing the actual actions taken, what Man would actually do with the choices presented to him: 1) obey God and thus demonstrate his love for God, 2) disobey God and thus demonstrate his judgment of God [For by his disobedience, Adam judged God to be a liar, not worthy of his trust and obedience]. It seems obvious to me that God's purpose was to test Man, and to see what their actual choices would be; thus, Man was not physically restricted from the forbidden tree, but was nonetheless clearly warned to not eat from it, lest they die. God did not compel Man to sin, nor did He compel Man to not sin; He wanted to see what Man would actually do with their choices.
Pharaoh and the Exodus situation is an altogether different equation. God already knew what was in the Pharaoh's heart, having witnessed his actions, his exercise of his freewill, over the course of his lifetime; there was thus no test involved, nothing to ascertain by observation of choices made in the present. Thus this presented a situation in which God could use strong-arm tactics to compel human decisions, because the desired outcome was not to test anyone, but to release the Hebrews from Egyptian tyranny, persecution, and enslavement.
JASON: So let me get this 'free will' thing straight...in God's effort to test man's love for him, he allows man to freely choose to sin and in this way he brutally kills his own son but when it's time to free a tribe of Israelites from Egyptian enslavement, God sends plague after plague to Pharaoh to compel him to obey. It can not be denied that if God did not have the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in mind before creating Adam and Eve, then that means God killed his own son by not preventing the first sin from taking place. And I'm not talking about taking the commandment or the tree of knowledge out of the picture. He could have done in Eden what he did in Egypt: perform miraculous 'heaven and earth' type works to convince Adam and Eve that his command was right and the serpent was wrong. But he didn't...and Jesus Christ had to die as the result.
And let us not forget that Pharaoh was repentant many times but God hardened Pharaoh's heart by relenting in his plagues and making Pharaoh think God was weakening in his resolve. So Pharaoh, like Adam and Eve, had the capacity to be obedient so there is no difference between Adam and Eve and Pharaoh. God killed his own son by letting Adam and Eve's free will choice lead to sin but when it came to Pharaoh, God was all ready to move mountains to keep him on the right path. There is something sadistic and sinister about that course of action and as Jesus suffered on the cross, he should've asked God, 'why didn't you do anything to stop this like you did in Egypt...' | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 5/23/2006 12:14 PM (GMT -6) | | jasonlevene said...
JASON: So let me get this 'free will' thing straight...in God's effort to test man's love for him, he allows man to freely choose to sin and in this way he brutally kills his own son but when it's time to free a tribe of Israelites from Egyptian enslavement, God sends plague after plague to Pharaoh to compel him to obey. It can not be denied that if God did not have the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in mind before creating Adam and Eve, then that means God killed his own son by not preventing the first sin from taking place. And I'm not talking about taking the commandment or the tree of knowledge out of the picture. He could have done in Eden what he did in Egypt: perform miraculous 'heaven and earth' type works to convince Adam and Eve that his command was right and the serpent was wrong. But he didn't...and Jesus Christ had to die as the result.
And let us not forget that Pharaoh was repentant many times but God hardened Pharaoh's heart by relenting in his plagues and making Pharaoh think God was weakening in his resolve. So Pharaoh, like Adam and Eve, had the capacity to be obedient so there is no difference between Adam and Eve and Pharaoh. God killed his own son by letting Adam and Eve's free will choice lead to sin but when it came to Pharaoh, God was all ready to move mountains to keep him on the right path. There is something sadistic and sinister about that course of action and as Jesus suffered on the cross, he should've asked God, 'why didn't you do anything to stop this like you did in Egypt...'
Before I address the rest of your questions, I must ask, are you not Trinitarian? Because I'm looking at this from a Trinitarian perspective, in which I recognize that Jesus Christ IS God, the Creator, and fully knew prior to creation that, should man sin, out of love for His creation He would readily become a man and suffer the pain of death; and, as a Trinitarian, I understand that it is the pre-incarnate Christ (God the Son) who (along with the Father and the Holy Spirit) worked the signs and miracles in Exodus, in Egypt, so naturally it doesn't make any sense to me to hear someone say "as Jesus suffered on the cross, he should've asked God, 'why didn't you do anything to stop this like you did in Egypt...". Which is why I'm asking if you're not Trinitarian, and perhaps think of the Son as a separate creation and not God? If Jesus on the cross was to ask anyone "why didn't you do anything to stop this", it would be Himself, seeing that He is our Creator, and the same God who rescued the Hebrews from Egypt.
Anyway, consider the following passage, when pondering what Christ thought of having to endure the crucifixion:
Hebrews 12:2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. | | Back to Top | | |
|
jasonlevene
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 40
| Posted 5/23/2006 1:51 PM (GMT -6) | |
John N Darby said...
Before I address the rest of your questions, I must ask, are you not Trinitarian? Because I'm looking at this from a Trinitarian perspective, in which I recognize that Jesus Christ IS God, the Creator, and fully knew prior to creation that, should man sin, out of love for His creation He would readily become a man and suffer the pain of death; and, as a Trinitarian, I understand that it is the pre-incarnate Christ (God the Son) who (along with the Father and the Holy Spirit) worked the signs and miracles in Exodus, in Egypt, so naturally it doesn't make any sense to me to hear someone say "as Jesus suffered on the cross, he should've asked God, 'why didn't you do anything to stop this like you did in Egypt...". Which is why I'm asking if you're not Trinitarian, and perhaps think of the Son as a separate creation and not God? If Jesus on the cross was to ask anyone "why didn't you do anything to stop this", it would be Himself, seeing that He is our Creator, and the same God who rescued the Hebrews from Egypt.
Anyway, consider the following passage, when pondering what Christ thought of having to endure the crucifixion:
Hebrews 12:2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Just to clarify, yes I am a trinitarian and yes I do believe that Jesus is God and you know, that makes the whole thing even worse. You say that Jesus as the pre-incarnate God the son was prepared to come in the flesh and die to redeem us from the possibility of man's sin...well here is my question: why didn't Jesus as God intervene in Eden as he did in Egypt to prevent his own brutal death? Remember Jesus was sweating blood in Gethsemane because of the imminent brutal suffering and death he was to endure and all of it could have been avoided if half of what he'd done in Egypt he'd done in Eden. So in essence, Jesus as God committed a form of divine suicide that he himself as the same God who intervened in Egypt could have been prevented. So to change the question around a bit: what kind of God would raise heaven and earth to free a tribe of Israelites from enslavement but then do nothing to prevent his own excruciatingly brutal death...
But the reason I say Jesus should have asked God the Father 'why didn't you do anything to stop this' is because in the incarnation, God the Father was greater than Jesus [Mark 13:32] and Jesus' entire mission was fulfilling the will of the Father by suffering and dying on the cross. So in the incarnation, as God the Father was greater than Jesus, Jesus [as the one who was actually going to endure the suffering and despair of the cross to redeem Adam and EVe's sin] could have legitimately asked God the Father why he didn't do anything to stop his suffering when he most certainly could have...and probably should have.
Post Edited (jasonlevene) : 5/23/2006 2:01:17 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 5/23/2006 2:02 PM (GMT -6) | | jasonlevene said...
Just to clarify, yes I am a trinitarian and yes I do believe that Jesus is God and you know, that makes the whole thing even worse. You say that Jesus as the pre-incarnate God the son was prepared to come in the flesh and die to redeem us from the possibility of man's sin...well here is my question: why didn't Jesus as God intervene in Eden as he did in Egypt to prevent his own brutal death? Remember Jesus was sweating blood in Gethsemane because of the imminent brutal suffering and death he was to endure and all of it could have been avoided if half of what he'd done in Egypt he'd done in Eden. So in essence, Jesus as God committed a form of divine suicide that he himself as the same God who intervened in Egypt could have been prevented.
But the reason I say Jesus should have asked God the Father 'why didn't you do anything to stop this' is because in the incarnation, God the Father was greater than Jesus [Mark 13:32] and Jesus' entire mission was fulfilling the will of the Father by suffering and dying on the cross. So in the incarnation, as God the Father was greater than Jesus, Jesus [as the one who was actually going to endure the suffering and despair of the cross to redeem Adam and EVe's sin] could have legitimately asked God the Father why he didn't do anything to stop his suffering when he most certainly could have...and probably should have.
Ok, thank you for affirming that you are Trinitarian. I have another question, before we continue. Where do you reckon love stands in God's heirarchy of priorities? Also, do you believe that love, to be genuinely love, must be freely chosen, and if not, then what is your understanding of the nature of love? | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 5/23/2006 2:54 PM (GMT -6) | | | Actually, jasonlevene, if you could also answer another question, whether you are a Calvinist, and if not, then what view do you hold? | | Back to Top | | |
| 116 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:41 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|