If God Never decreed/ordained the Fall...

[Agent47]

No, I don't.

Another example is Joseph being sold into bondage. This is exactly the same with the addition of Scripture providing the "double speak" or contradiction. The act was purposed by the brothers as evil. Their act was sin. But God was behind the event, and that same act was "good" in His hands.

There, as well, I see no contradiction. God purposed the event (to save Israel and "make her a people"). But to the brothers it was sin.

All these supposed proof texts have been examined. Calvinistic exegesis or eisegesis is not the only valid understanding not is it the most reasonable.

God can and has exploited certain events for his purpose without necessity

 

[Agent47]

We'll just have to disagree on the circular reasoning. I think the problem is inherent in the idea of exhaustive, infallible foreknowledge, so some seemingly circular logic is unavoidable.

Circular reasoning is unavoidable but you disagree. Ok

But even if you ground the idea of knowing the future in decrees, it's still going to create the same problem. If a certain future is decreed and will certainly occur, then all other possible futures are excluded.

Great point. Why ground foreknowledge in decrees?

This theory is not only scriptural but also untenable

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 1 AM Pacific.

 

[Agent47]

It would be decidedly funny were it not so tragic for some to flush Jesus Christ laying down his for our sins as the 'smoking gun' of God imagining and causing the very sins He is offering His son for

 

[Agent47]

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 1 AM Pacific.

What is six hour warning?

 

[JonC]

All these supposed proof texts have been examined. Calvinistic exegesis or eisegesis is not the only valid understanding not is it the most reasonable.

God can and has exploited certain events for his purpose without necessity

I also beleive that God has exploited certain events for his purpose without necessity. Adam's sin is one of them (Adam did not have to sin, it was a free choice).

I never claimed that Calvinistic exegesis was the only valid understanding, nor that it was the most reasonable as scripture teaches the inadequacy of both human understanding and reasoning. The best that we can hope for (on these types of forums) is that a brother will bring out something to help us overhaul or fine tune our own positions.

It is for this reason that I brought up the inconsistency with your logical conclusion - not to change your mind (that is not my business) but to highlight the problem. Both Calvinism and Arminianism are logical positions. In fact, Open Theism is a logical position. But the position you stated cannot stand on it's own (it is not logical). Your next reasonable step is to rework your theory. If you are able to make it stand, I would very much be interested in learning what you come up with.

 

[JonC]

What is six hour warning?

Don't worry. It's not going to explode.

He's going to close the thread in six hours (you can start another).

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/from-the-mod-ii.90637/

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.