This is incoherent
-
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!
Perishing without having ever heard the gospel they end up in....
- Thread starter Agent47
- Start date
- Status
We've gone around and around in circles. If a person has no ability to choose otherwise, it's not a real choice.
There is no such thing as full /total free will!
Heresy is just a theory you haven't adopted yet
(kidding)My point is that the flaw in open theism is not the logic but their understanding of God. Some people will say that they believe God knew things, all decisions, all sin...everything....before Creation. If that is true then all will unfold as God knew from the past they will (all is at least predestined to occur by God's creative act, and all is at least destined to occur within God's will because God freely spoke into being Creation as he knew it would be). But some people seem, against all logic, to reject this part.
The real question is who would we trust with handling salvation in the final sense, God or ourselves?Heresy is just a theory you haven't adopted yet
My point is that the flaw in open theism is not the logic but their understanding of God. Some people will say that they believe God knew things, all decisions, all sin...everything....before Creation. If that is true then all will unfold as God knew from the past they will (all is at least predestined to occur by God's creative act, and all is at least destined to occur within God's will because God freely spoke into being Creation as he knew it would be). But some people seem, against all logic, to reject this part.
Not saying there is. This is why Paul's argument in Romans 9 is seriously flawed.
If there is no free will, then we must look at the antecedent factors contributing to the decision. They all aim an arrow straight back to God, and Paul knew it. If God has free will, he made the free choice to put these people in the position in which they would have no choice but to reject him.
That's why Paul anticipated the objection, dodged the question, and just claimed we should accept it without questioning, because God said so.
He realized the moral implications of his argument, and he had no rational response, or he would have used it. He never had any problem explaining the reasons behind things whenever he actually had a coherent response. In Romans 9, he painted himself into a corner, and he dropped the "Don't question God" trump card to get out. The problem with that line of thinking is that you can use it to justify literally anything because it can't be challenged with rational arguments.
I'm sure it's just a matter of time before I'm kicked off here, but defending the indefensible has been a repetitive exercise anyway.
His answer came from God, as th Holy Spiit inspired this to be penned down!
I understand that you would think that.
If one hold t the Inerrancy of the Bible, then what I state make perfect sense, if one does not hold to that, then can see how confusion results!
You are bound not to question the logic of the argument if you hold to inerrancy, so you just don't have to engage it on that level.
That is due to accepting that in the end, God will do what is righ concerninhis issue!
Those who do not hear go to hell, because the wages of sin is death and they are still accountable for their sins even though they never heard the Gospel.
"He that believeth not is condemned already.."
"He that believeth not is condemned already.."
Correction
God determined/elected who he would save because he predestinated them.
'Regardless of predestination' is nonsensical doublespeak (only a Calvinist can muster
) to someone who believes he was saved because of predestination.The other post you appealed to mystery ad to why God chose you and not another...insisted it's no arbitrary. So God knew who he would choose.
If you can't be coherent and consistent then I ignore your post with contempt.
Now rephrase your 'presupposition' and come back
I repeat
1. God infallibly decrees the Fall
2. Fall condemns all to death
3. God then infallibly decrees to save some of these dead men.
He decreed total death and partially reversed this so he decreed reprobation of the unlucky ones. He hates them
Last edited:
It is confusion running from Augustine to imagine that contingencies and freedom diminish God's sovereignty. Working on this for my next threadHeresy is just a theory you haven't adopted yet
My point is that the flaw in open theism is not the logic but their understanding of God. Some people will say that they believe God knew things, all decisions, all sin...everything....before Creation. If that is true then all will unfold as God knew from the past they will (all is at least predestined to occur by God's creative act, and all is at least destined to occur within God's will because God freely spoke into being Creation as he knew it would be). But some people seem, against all logic, to reject this part.
I don't think that Augustine thought that contingencies and freedom diminished God's sovereignty (not that it matters so much what he thought). I know Edwards didn't think that. But, more importantly, I don't think that contingencies and freedom diminishes God's sovereignty. In fact, if anything does not the fact of our freedom, our ability to freely choose and the results of these decisions highlight God's sovereignty? It seems so to me, anyway.
What I am saying is that God knew all of these things before he created man. Whether you believe God is the direct cause of everything or that God allows and plans on things because he knew they would happen is not really important this topic because the result is exactly the same. Everything ends up predetermined (determined by God directly through causing, or determined by God indirectly through creating).
Same result with different implication.
One makes God morally ambiguous, a moral divine monster. The other one preserves the holy character of God as revealed in the Word made Flesh
God creating a world with possibility of Sin is different from God inventing and infallibly decreeing sin, and punishing man for it.
It's the difference between Boeing/Airbus company and 911 attackers. Determining to kill by ramming into WTC versus creating a machine that can kill by ramming into WTC
Last edited:
Not long ago it was you who claimed to believe that God knew, before Creation, who would be saved and who would not. Now you seem to be saying that these things are in fact not predetermined (God did not at least create man knowing before he created them who would and would not be saved).Correction
God determined/elected who he would save because he predestinated them.
'Regardless of predestination' is nonsensical doublespeak (only a Calvinist can muster
If you can't be coherent and consistent then I ignore your post with contempt.
The other post you appealed to mystery ad to why God chose you and not another...insisted it's no arbitrary. So God knew who he would choose.
Now rephrase your 'presupposition' and come back
You are backtracking and altering your statements/views (the assembled facts) to suit your conclusion. This is never a good idea. Instead you should alter your conclusion based on assembled facts. I other words, you not long ago gave us an equation that looked like this: 1+1=3. And now, instead of changing the answer you are changing the variables to 1+2=3. That is not honest work, brother. You'd do better cheating off my paper
.I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. I've given you Edward's quotes (which I believe to be the best and simplest explanation of this biblical teaching). I will try, once again, because If you can't understand this part then you will continue to fight windmills. Just please, please ,please, stop idolizing Horatio Nelson
.X = Omniscience, God is all knowing
Y= Creator-ship, God is Creator
Z= Sovereignty God is sovereign and nothing occurs without God's willingness for it to have existed.
X+Y=Z
If X is correct and God is omniscient (God knows everything, even who will and will not be saved) AND
If Y is correct and God is the Creator
Then Z is correct because a God who knows everything that will be before he creates and still creates was willing that all things unfold as he knew they would.
NOW, let's look at your logic (the one that faltered a couple of threads ago and left you speechless):
X = God is omniscient and knew before Creation that Adam would sin just as Adam had sinned.
Y = God created Adam, planted a Garden in Eden, and put Adam in the Garden with the tree.
The logical answer is Z= God created man willingly, knowing that man would sin
But you denied that answer. Your answer was that the Fall was not predestined to occur (either directly by God causing the Fall, or indirectly by God creating knowing for certain how Creation would unfold).
Your answer was illogical. If we reduce this down to a simple two step problem and your logic is flawed, then how can it be trusted against other systems that do not fall prey to such error (Calvinism, Arminianism, Open Theism...they are all logical....yours is not)?
Not long ago it was you who claimed to believe that God knew, before Creation, who would be saved and who would not. Now you seem to be saying that these things are in fact not predetermined (God did not at least create man knowing before he created them who would and would not be saved).
You are backtracking and altering your statements/views (the assembled facts) to suit your conclusion. This is never a good idea. Instead you should alter your conclusion based on assembled facts. I other words, you not long ago gave us an equation that looked like this: 1+1=3. And now, instead of changing the answer you are changing the variables to 1+2=3. That is not honest work, brother. You'd do better cheating off my paper
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. I've given you Edward's quotes (which I believe to be the best and simplest explanation of this biblical teaching). I will try, once again, because If you can't understand this part then you will continue to fight windmills. Just please, please ,please, stop idolizing Horatio Nelson
X = Omniscience, God is all knowing
Y= Creator-ship, God is Creator
Z= Sovereignty God is sovereign and nothing occurs without God's willingness for it to have existed.
X+Y=Z
If X is correct and God is omniscient (God knows everything, even who will and will not be saved) AND
If Y is correct and God is the Creator
Then Z is correct because a God who knows everything that will be before he creates and still creates was willing that all things unfold as he knew they would.
NOW, let's look at your logic (the one that faltered a couple of threads ago and left you speechless):
X = God is omniscient and knew before Creation that Adam would sin just as Adam had sinned.
Y = God created Adam, planted a Garden in Eden, and put Adam in the Garden with the tree.
The logical answer is Z= God created man willingly, knowing that man would sin
But you denied that answer. Your answer was that the Fall was not predestined to occur (either directly by God causing the Fall, or indirectly by God creating knowing for certain how Creation would unfold).
Your answer was illogical. If we reduce this down to a simple two step problem and your logic is flawed, then how can it be trusted against other systems that do not fall prey to such error (Calvinism, Arminianism, Open Theism...they are all logical....yours is not)?
@JonC,
I have been consistent. God knew Adam would Fall, he planned for it knowing it would happen. But for you, he did more than knowing; he infallibly decreed it
Decreeing the Fall is decreeing the inevitable consequences of the same namely sin and death.
Only you charge God with decreeing the Fall which you lamely and in vain attempted to distinguish from sinning.
Shameless. Redefining Sovereignty in Calvinistic terms to suit your argument.
Did God will for the names Adam gave to the animals to 'have existed'?
Last edited:
Erroneous illustration. You said that God knew all that would occur in creation (even that Adam would sin before he created Adam). Boeing/Airbus company did not know that their plain was going to be used in that attack. But I understand the gist of your argument.
David Basinger echoed it by saying that we "need not maintain that God’s creative goals require that many people in the Third World be allowed to starve or that many children be allowed to suffer abuse. We are free to maintain, rather, that these evils, and also their patterns of distribution, are byproducts of a world containing freedom – byproducts that God, as well as each of us, wishes had not occurred.”
- Status