-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Did God design the best possible universe?
- Thread starter billwald
- Start date
preacher4truth
Active Member
You should've been there to add your own advice, and to give your most excellent input.
He could have some humans or none. All was never and option if He wanted someone to love Him back. Sin happens with free will. Some choose to follow and some choose to not follow, but the alternative is no choice at all.
You look at it in the wrong way. God would be just to send all humans to hell. In fact, that would have been right for him to do. He, though, saved a few.
My philosophical problem with this is not that anyone goes to hell. My philosophical problem is that God would save anyone.
Secondly, we are guilty in Adam. As they used to say, "through Adam's fall, we sinned all." We are sinners therefore we sin. Thus, while our actual sins further condemn us, we are condemned through the sin of Adam; we are dead in sins and trespasses. So, we are not only judged by our actual deeds, but by our imputed sin (Romans 5). However, it is through the imputation of Christ's Righteousness that some are saved, so we cannot object to imputation. God would have been just to condemn the entire world, and no unrighteousness or evil could be attributed to God if He chose to do such. Yet, God is gracious, loving, and kind. As a result, He sent His Son to save some.
Don't we have a gracious God?
If we accept that God is all-knowing, we have to accept that God saw this world for what it was, knew exactly which people would worship him, and which would not...and then decided to create this world anyway. Somehow, this world, with all it's sin and evil and suffering, is the one that will ultimately bring God the most glory. We may not know exactly how, but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that were it not for sin, we would not be able to worship God for his sacrificial love, or forgiveness, or redemption on the cross. We would not know about such things, only that God is good and created everything.
I am uncomfortable with this statement because it seems that it would also mean that God created this world with the possibility that NONE would accept him. If God can make a world in which he knows some will accept him, I would think God could have created a slightly different world in which even more people would be convinced to freely trust him than currently do, and even that he could have made a world in which all people freely chose him. I don't know for sure why he didn't.
I am uncomfortable with this statement because it seems that it would also mean that God created this world with the possibility that NONE would accept him. If God can make a world in which he knows some will accept him, I would think God could have created a slightly different world in which even more people would be convinced to freely trust him than currently do, and even that he could have made a world in which all people freely chose him. I don't know for sure why he didn't.
Dr. Walter
New Member
Is God all wise? If not, then He is not God. Is God all good? If not, He is not God. Did God create the very best possible creation? If not, then God is neither wise or good and that is precisely what you are implying.
With the fall, God purposed the best outcome not for sinners but for His own glory. Hell glorifies God's justice or it would not exist. Grace glorifies God's mercy. Who are you to tell Him what he can do or should not do with God hating sinners? He could have glorified himself by mere justice and sent all sinners to hell and have been perfectly just. He could have glorified himself and saved all sinners. So, it is not he that runneth or he that willeth but God who sheweth mercy or hardeneth and whatever He chooses to do is perfectly just and will glorify Him most.
None in hell can claim He was unjust. None in heaven can claim they deserve heaven. God is just either way and is glorified best by working all things according to His own will (Eph. 1:1-13).
Last edited by a moderator:
Insert response from God to Job here...
This sounds good, but the problems start when you introduce Augustiniansim into the mix. It's not justice in any system particularly God's to condemn someone for how you made them. Would it be justice for the police to knock on your door and tell you they have to execute your children for the only reason that they were born to you? Guessing not.
Dr. Walter
New Member
First, lost sinners are not God's children but God's enemies! Second, God is the judge and yes he will execute his enemies justly. Third, the only JUST consequences the enemies of God deserve is hell, they do not JUSTLY deserve anything but hell. Grace and mercy is something no law breaker can demand from your Judge. Fourth, you are the one that inserted Augustianism into this discussion. I quoted Paul not Augustine and the one you are responding quoted neither.
The problem with your premise is that the police officer is bound to law. If you presume that God is under law and thus bound to law, then there is a moral problem in your scenario. However, if we agree with Augustine that God is the standard of law, this is not the issue.
Or, as the famous quote says, "Is it just and right therefore God does it, or does God do it therefore it is just and right?" Historically, theologians are unanimous, God does something therefore it is just and right.
God can do whatever He wills and there is no moral or ethical issue. Whatever He does is good. God could make something to condemn it, that is what it means to be God. To argue otherwise is to argue that there is a law above God, thus God is not God and subject to law above himself.
Christians call God, "Holy, Holy, Holy" which makes him the standard of all that is good and right.
Yes.
James 1
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
HankD
...and nothing here answered my question. Next...
Dr. Walter
New Member
I made no intent to answer any question you asked. What I responded to was your wrong analogy you used to rebuke another poster.
Of course it's "wrong"...it exposes your theology for what it is.
Dr. Walter
New Member
Do you have a problem either reading or comprehending what you read? I don't think so, so the only other alternative is pure deception.
What I said was "wrong" was you analogy! You cannot compare a father and his children with God and his enemies - Sorry but that is a false analogy.
Stop being a politician and simply give an honest reponse.
:laugh: The focus on the analogy was not the relationship of the people involved but the justice within the analogy. I wouldn't expect you to get it...and I do not think you are one to be speaking out on deception, "doctor". :laugh:
Dr. Walter
New Member
I understood the analogy perfectly! However, that does not make a WRONG analogy RIGHT! You are WRONG to place God in the analogous role of a "father" in relationship to "children" in regard to judgement to hell when in fact it is a relationship to his "enemies" that are judged to hell.
Originally Posted by 12strings:
From Dr. Walter:
I guess I wasn't clear. I was not saying God SHOULD HAVE DONE the things I proposed. Merely that he COULD have, and decided not to, in order that this world he actually created would give him more glory...because he is all wise and good.
From Dr. Walter:
I guess I wasn't clear. I was not saying God SHOULD HAVE DONE the things I proposed. Merely that he COULD have, and decided not to, in order that this world he actually created would give him more glory...because he is all wise and good.
Dr. Walter
New Member
You are missing my point altogether! If he "could have" then he obviously did not, right? Why? Because what you suggest he "could have" was INFERIOR to what he did! Why? Because he never does anything less than perfect or the best. Therefore, to do what you think he "could have" was to invalidate himself as God because that would require repudiating what he actually did as good as what being God demands.