Reply to RobE (whoa)
Reply to RobE (whoa)
Originally Posted by patman
How about to Enoch, Abraham, Noah, and the millions before Christ?
I am not getting the point. Unless these are all good buddies of yours, alive and well today, these all died before Christ, he would have knowledge of their sins. The "said problem" is how can Christ die for sins in a future that is unknown, is it not?
I included them because I'm trying to comprehend God if he only lived in the present, not in the past or future. 'Outside of time', so to speak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patman
I do believe Christ bore our sins. But not to the extreme nature that you do. You read this verse[2 Peter 2:24], and you see every sin from all over the world from all time being placed on Christ. I do not read all that into the verse. Jesus bore our sins means that our sin, in general, was bore by Christ.
Not to ridicule, but did you say here that Jesus bore our sins which means Jesus bore our sins for the most part, but not completely?
I can see how you might read all that into my statement. I am sorry for not wording it better. Jesus bore our sins on the cross means that our sins, sins of any human, i.e. in general. The word bore makes it sound as if sin were a weight to be carried. What is the weight of sin? Death. This is why the rest of the verse includes that overlooked line "that we might be dead to sin."
Quote:
Originally Posted by patman
You also like the idea of Jesus thinking of you while he was on the cross. I would like that idea too if I thought it were possible.
I really never considered Jesus thinking of me on the cross. It would make it more personal, but I always figured he was thinking about the Father's will and resisting the temptation to remove himself from the cross. It would seem a simple task compared to defeating death and overcoming the gates of hell.
RobE, I am sorry for making assumptions about what you believe. I accused you of being blind because the desire to be lifted up was driving your thinking. You admitted that you never thought about what I said. Thus, I am truly sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patman
This is what I say, using my own words, and not yours (against you)
If God starts a program knowing that program will sin because of the way he made it, and knowing it would be possible for him to start a different program that does not sin, God, in effect, predestined man to sin. If God designs a man to sin, God predestined him to fall. I do not understand how that deniable.
God created man 'Good'. As you pointed out in your last post it would be impossible to start any program which includes free will(choices); if in reality, there is no choice. Now, factor into that program the millions of people who have been born into the world. What's the probability that a wrong choice wouldn't be made. Zero. If free will exists, so do wrong choices(sin)!
Patman, God, the one who does know the future, is not responsible for sin made through your own free will, even if it saddened him when he foresaw it. He's not responsible for your choices, now or ever; but he did suffer and die for them, before you drew your first breath, so you could exercise your free will and have an opportunity to choose life.
RobE, I know this is what you believe, and if that's all there were to it, I could see your point. It is like me watching Stargate for the 5th time. I am not responsible for Ra' being evil just because I know the end of the movie.
Which is true only if I didn't write the movie. If I wrote the movie, created the characters, then I could say that I was the one who made Ra' kill Daniel Jackson's wife.
I know you don't see life as if it were a script. I have read and understood your point that you think God knows the future as one who just understands. You think that God, while knowing the future, gave man freewill, and we are responsible for our own choices.
But so far, I am not seeing an answer to the problem I see with this view. If God knew the future when he created man, he knew that the particular design he used would result in a sinful man without fail. I know you say that there were probably a quazi-billi-kazillion options where sin was certain to happen sooner or later among freewill men, I guess that means you think he chose the best design, so to say?
You may not see it, but the idea of looking into the future means everything has a destiny.
It doesn't matter if man sinned or not. If God looked into the future he would know how not to make man, so that the nerves in his brain would not come to the very conclusion that would permit sin in the world, thus giving man a hand in his own destruction.
I am at a loss for words on how to explain my problem with the view that God saw the future while creating man. A lot of this feels like repeat.
Perhaps I can explain it with this: TNT has a good side and a bad side. It can plow roads, it makes foundations for buildings, and so on... It also has a dark side. It can be used in acts of terrorism such that innocent people die from it.
Lets suppose JOE made TNT. His TNT has a special mixture to make it stronger than others. Joe gets an order to make a batch. As he start to make it, he discovers that the order will be shipped to terrorists in NY City and used to blow up a building, but he didn't care. He makes it anyway, he even makes it with his special mixture, knowing ahead of time that his TNT would not be used for good; not even one stick was going to be used for good. After he ships it, a week later 500 are killed because of the work of his hands. Do you suppose that Joe is in any way responsible for those lives lost? Joe didn't push the "boom" button, but he made his TNT knowing it would be used to kill innocent people. And he made it in such a way that it would be more powerful to boot!
What if Joe didn't know? What if he checked the order and found it was going to be used to fix i40? Then he makes the TNT with the special mixture and sends it out, and on the way down the shipment is stopped, the truck stolen, and tragically the TNT was used to kill 500 people, would Joe be responsible? Absolute not. He made the TNT in such a way that it would be powerful for i40, not for the evil the terrorist did, as the previous example stated.
Now what about a god who knows the future? He makes man, knowing that this particular design will lead to a world consumed with sin. Not only that, he knew all would sin. And not only that, anything is possible for God, so it was possible to make things so they would turn out different.
The consequences of his creation would have been on his mind through out the entire creation process, "When I give Adam a type B personality, it will be the factor that makes him eat of the tree." I believe a loving God would have used this knowledge to his advantage, and created man differently.
I think I already know your answer to this. What about free will? God gave us freewill. But if God knows the future, he knows every possible domino effect that will happen as a result of his creation. Thus, because God created the world the way he did, he created its domino effect. That means there really is no free will.
Even if God does give Adam freewill while knowing his future, he already knows the choices Adam will make as a result of everything God laid out. And he would know, perfectly and exactly, what things to do to guild his freewill to do the right thing. And he would have done them so that he would not be setting the dominos up for destruction.
RobE, this is only one the many problems I have with God knowing the future. Any way you or I spin this, I always come to the conclusion that God set the domino's to fall in the way they have, meaning every sin that ever happened, every good thing, and every thing else that ever happened are all a result of God doing making it the way it is, knowing ahead of time exactly what sins he was causing.
If God does not know the future, he cannot be certain that sin will come. If he designed man in such a way that there was no programing, i.e. that he was free, God's hands are truly clean if that man falls to sin because God did everything that he could to prevent it without stopping it.
You said a while back that a god who does not know the future would still be responsible for sin. And now you say in Rule 1 that "God is not responsible for sin whether he knows the future or not."
Do you really think that? Every logical end tells me that if God knows the future, he would use this knowledge in such a way that the world would have been created and, shaped afterwards, so perfectly that no sin would exist. Man could still have freewill, though God would know exactly what to and not to do that would cause that will to choose the wrong thing because he saw ahead of time what would happen. While man was given the choice to sin, his choice would always result in right, making freewill more of a token than real money.
If you want to say that freewill in the context that A loving god who knows the future is "real money", this leads us down another road. God now knows every action of every freewill person, those who sin and those who don't. God knows the future, and everything about it, and knows the exact actions he and his creation will take. He is now trapped. He sees the absolute future, and not a future of possibilities. He remembers giving Adam freewill, and he knows the coming sin will not allow an intervention from God because freewill is not taboo in this situation, so he is helpless. He can't use the knowledge of the future to help Adam because he already foresaw that Adam would fall, he already saw that He wouldn't stop it from happening, and despite the actions he did take to put things in place and to cause what he can to happen, the future is unwinding exactly the way that God just knew it would happen.
DEEP STUFF.
It seems to me that any way you cut it, God's knowledge of the future is impossible so long as we have freewill.
Deut. 18:18
18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."
21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken.
Question: If what a prophet says does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord hasn't spoken. What does this mean to you in relationship to the unfulfilled prophecies used by the OVers to state their case against traditional Christianity.
I think OV'ers can trust the Bible and the words of the prophets more than anyone reading. As it might appear the verses that I say didn't come to pass is final - cut and dry, there is always that twist that we adhere to from Jeremiah. I explained it to Lee that God said he would repent from his proclamations depending on the actions of the people for which the proclamations were declared.
Just like Jonah proclaimed 40 days till the destruction of Nineveh and it didn't come to pass, so can it happen else where.
One more small point, while I may have to freshen up on this a bit, I believe that scripture adds more to this clause in Deut 18. I seem to remember that prophets were to be tested based on short term predictions or signs before they were to be trusted for longer term predictions. And if that short term prediction did not come to pass, it would be known he was not the real deal as Deut 18 says.
P.S.
RobE, I wish to submit that we move forward with this debate. It seems obvious that you believe that freewill and a future knowledge of God are possible. And I, as to all the logic I can muster, cannot disagree more. If we have nothing new to add, I think that we should let this item in the debate fall to the wayside. You have your reasons for thinking what you think, and I have mine.
I tried very hard to bring all logical reasoning to explain in every aspect why I disagree, understanding fully why you believe as you do. If the logic in this post does not cause you to even question your views, I must say, I will never be able to show you the logic. I am doing the best I can to do this, but that may not be enough.
Have you ever had a thought or an idea that is difficult to vocalize? I am in such a situation when I try to explain to you why the knowledge of the future and the ability of freewill to exist fail. I think this is because I see so many contradictions in the thought, and so much circular reasoning that I don't know where to start to attack it.
It is like me trying to teach my wife to paint. I know how to do it, I show her what I am doing... but words just don't work when it comes to such matters.
Anyway, I hope that at least you can somewhat see what I am trying to say. My fear is that if by now you are unswayed by my points (and considering my being unswayed by your points), I fear that we will just continue to bump heads and end up no where.
Perhaps a different strategy is called for? After all we are trying to make since of something that we are debating about, and use that as evidence for the debate. Where has that taken us so far? Well, to me I proved my evidence, and to you, you proved yours. So we are nowhere. Perhaps starting on a ground that takes out our personal opinions on the workings of freewill? Easier said than done...
If you wish to continue this line of thought, I will honor that. But I am going to have to find a good way to articulate my thoughts. I just ask your patience in this. However if agree to disagree and move on, I would honor that also. Perhaps we can come back to this once one of us starts to win the debate just for fun?
The ball is in your court RobE.
