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
-
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!
If God Never decreed/ordained the Fall...
- Thread starter Agent47
- Start date
- Status
Let's look at your logic first.
You have said that God knew if he put Adam in the Garden he would sin. But you say God was not willing that Adam sin. Yet you seem to believe God not only planted the Garden, but he also put Adam there knowing for certain he would sin. And now you say God did all of this unwillingly. God acted against his will because, as your conclusion seems to logically unfold, he is enslaved to man. How low a view of God your logic produces.
Quite right.
A deity with that sort of decision-making would either be an idiot or not a deity as we understand the term.
Certainty of knowledge is key. If you have exhaustive foreknowledge and omnipotence, you have the power to ensure outcomes with absolute certainty. Actively doing something to create an outcome you don't want is simply insane, unless you have other reasons for doing so. In that case, you DO actually want the outcome because it leads to another outcome you desire more than you desire to avoid the initial outcome.
Based on my reading of the text--In a sense, yes. He created the conditions that made disobedience possible, created the serpent at some point in the past, allowed the serpent access to the Garden (from which the humans were notably banned after sinning---not so for the tempting serpent until he brings down the humans), and didn't intervene.
So did God will for 911 or not?
That depends on how you look at the question.
From an open theist perspective, not necessarily, but he also didn't stop it from happening once he saw it was definitely happening.
From a traditional view of omniscience, yes, on some level. If he had the power to stop it and the knowledge that it would occur, then the inescapable conclusion is that it was willed to some degree, even if only passively.
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?
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 taking this point further means whatever happens or does not is God's will. In this ambiguity, what is right and wrong?
Last edited:
This is where A47's "logic" falls apart as his reasoning is inconsistent. Even more than this is defining what constitutes sin. For A47 it has to be the objective act itself (or his opposing argument fails). But if sin is constituted in the objective act itself then his defensive argument fails. He is a victim of his own logic.
You don't manufacture logic or lack thereof by shouting but by reasonably demonstrating so
Biblically speaking? Basically, when Paul got backed into a very similar corner, he essentially ducked the question.: Rom. 9:20 (ESV) "But who are you,O man,to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?”
God's answer in Job was very similar. The Bible never gives a real answer to this question.
To your second question---for whom?
Paul was addressing the question of Israel, and he was not ducking. Besides,his was hypothetical. Here we are addressing actual circumstances.
Be humble enough to concede ignorance.
God.
In mainstream Christian thought, God (with full omniscience) creates a world in which it is absolutely certain that a large portion (if not the vast majority) of humanity will be tortured without mercy for all eternity. For the Calvinist, this is a function of electing some and not others. For the non-Calvinist, it's the function of some coming to faith and some not. The result is ultimately the same. Hell is hell, regardless.
I don't see how the scenario you mentioned would be all that different.
It's the mainstream view of omniscience combined with omnipotence. You either decree or permit.
Right and wrong? It's hard to even address that question. For God himself at least, the Bible seems to portray that right is whatever God wants to do. Wrong is inapplicable.
He was absolutely ducking the question because he didn't answer it. He deflected. That may be a valid response, but it's not an answer to the question.
I'm not sure what ignorance you want me to concede. I stated that the Bible never gives an answer.
I answered the God question in the post I just made before this.
Logically, given the media here, unless otherwise expressed any emotional elevation in tone that would constitute "shouting" is superimposed.
What I am saying is your conclusion is not logical. No manufacturing or shouting involved.
God infallibly reprobating billions for his glory and saving a few for his glory makes it pointless. He is essentially a confused monster working to undo his own ddecrees by other decrees yet he is glorified in all.
God creating free beings who walk away from him is better. His crime again remains freedom.
What's the difference between decreeing and permitting?
But if right is whatever God wants to do, then his wanting man to Sin is right
Ok. But I think he was saying if that were the case you can't question God. But is it the case?
That you don't know, not that scripture is silent
Last edited:
What am saying is, saying 'not logical' without demonstrating it is shouting
But who created hell? And it really isn't freedom. If we are born with a corrupted sinful nature, we are going to sin no matter what. We don't have any choice but to be sinners.
Active vs. passive, if you want to draw a distinction (many do). Functionally the result is the same.
That would seem to be the logical conclusion.
God, for Satan and his angels
Depends on your definition of sinful nature.
Can either be resisted?
That would seem to be the logical
For you where do you draw your values from?
I do not find your definition of "shouting" to be logical. The reason is that when I look up the word it seems to carry an emotional attachment that is not definitively known through written correspondence unless it is expressed otherwise (e.g., the man shouted "Get off my lawn").
What you probably mean to say is that I have not demonstrated why your position is not logical. I believe I have, but I will try once again.
If I know with a certainty that mixing bleach and ammonia will result in the production chloramines, and I am not willing that these toxic gasses be produced, then it is not logical that I will willingly mix bleach and ammonia. Does this mean that I will not mix the chemicals? Yes. Absolutely every time. Perhaps a situation may arise when these toxic gasses will benefit my purpose (it happen on an episode of MacGyver once). But then it cannot be said I was unwilling that these gases be produced.
You have stated that God knew, for certainty, that if Adam was put in the Garden he would sin. You seem to believe Scripture when it is said that God created Adam, and planted a Garden, and put Adam in this Garden where you insist God knew Adam would sin. Yet you seem to divorce these two things.
My conclusion is that if 1+x=y and you do are not willing to come up with the number 2 then you will not assign to x the value "1" (not if you can do simple math, anyway). My assertion is that your conclusion/reasoning is not logical and is, in fact, a victim of it's own error.
What you have to prove is that God, knowing for certain that Adam+Garden=Sin, creates the equation Adam+Garden yet is unwilling that Sin be the result.
.
- Status