Search results

You don't manufacture logic or lack thereof by shouting but by reasonably demonstrating so

God creates FREE beings. He is only 'guilty' of LFW. Which is a lesser evil than charging a Holy God with authoring and infallibly causing unimaginable evil only to punish man for this. I think Olson rightly called such a concept a moral monster. Not sure how 'traditional' this view is. But...

On what basis is God just seeing he judges men on the basis of what He infallibly causes them to do? And exactly what is the difference between right and wrong?

So did God will for 911 or not?

Your point being only God would cause a sin-nature free Adam to Sin,right? They are relevant because they are caused by corruption which was caused by God decreeing Adam to Fall when he otherwise would not have

False analogy. Creation produces more than one outcome whereas 1+1 can only produce 2. But mathematics is not for everyone:Roflmao When will you vote?

Correct Correct Correct Where did I say that? How so? A God of your imagination. You have made false claims for which I should report you only I don't know to whom seeing you are the gods of this forum:Biggrin

Ok Presuppositions God knows Adam will sin God creates Adam Adam sins Conclusion God wanted/willed Adam to sin Is this a hypothetical example or is it what you really believe?

The answer is simple; Adam was FREE. What makes you think FREE beings need any incentive to choose? Did God will that 200 Americans jump to their deaths in September 11 2001 ? No? Why did he create conditions for this?

Man did not sin because there were conditions but because He was created relational..free to love God. He chose not to. If Adam could not have sinned, then it follows ordaining is what caused him to Sin. Why is Adam culpable/judgement-worthy? On what basis does God judge man?

And they need not be perfect to draw perfectly logical con conclusions. Two fallible beings. One theorizes based on presuppositions. The other seizes these presuppositions. Why would they arrive at different mutually contradictory conclusion? No example as expected. Recall my esoteric quip...

Not Willing. Now answer my question

Great Or simply allow/permit even what He does not approve. You abuse the word logical inconsistency. Demonstrate it. Demonstrate it. Imaginary conclusions. Authoring sin is simply authoring Sin. Whoever conceived and executes or causes to be executed an idea is the author.

God did not ordain nor decree the Fall. Would Adam sin under these circumstances?

No example forthcoming because none exists. If your theory subscribes to a set of presuppositions, then anyone working with your presuppositions would arrive at the same conclusion as yourself

God's intent was in creating relational being. This is only accomplished by creating man free to or not to relate to Him. Sin is a consequence of this freedom. God is not culpable for free decisions of his creature, which is why in His sovereignty he made them free so he does not author their...

I would like an example of two logical but mutually exclusive positions based on the same presuppositions.

Perfect future knowledge would equally explain provision before the 'need'. I know it will rain. I plan to and actually carry an umbrella well before it pours. It pours, I use my umbrella. Future knowledge suffices to 'use' the umbrella before it rains. 'Planning' or 'predetermining' the rain...

There are diverse beliefs. How we move from what God says to what we believe is what I'm talking about.

Agreed lest we end up quoting scriptures like Satan But it is increasingly clear that we approach scriptures through lenses of whatever theological worldview we don. Little wonder a Catholic will insist brothers and sisters of Jesus are anything but. The definitions we give to scriptural...