- This topic is empty.
- Posts
So finally DK has again openned his pet topic called “free will” here only he was annoyed with me I know that. That's why he started commenting negatively that I was a puppet to Gene. Let him prove this so called free will. When somebody is led by the Spirit of God where is the question of free will here. I think DK likes his free will more than God's will which Jesus kept aside(emptied) and fulfilled only his Father's will.
Let us follow Jesus not any human who is so much interested in his so called “free will” which is against God's laws.
Peace to all
AdamQuote (gollamudi @ June 25 2008,14:22) So finally DK has again openned his pet topic called “free will” here only he was annoyed with me I know that. That's why he started commenting negatively that I was a puppet to Gene. Let him prove this so called free will. When somebody is led by the Spirit of God where is the question of free will here. I think DK likes his free will more than God's will which Jesus kept aside(emptied) and fulfilled only his Father's will.
Let us follow Jesus not any human who is so much interested in his so called “free will” which is against God's laws.
Peace to all
Adam
lol…Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 25 2008,13:59) DK….If you are guided by the Spirit it has nothing to do with your own free will, “for He (God) works in us Both to (WILL) and do of His good Pleasure. 1 Cor 2:14,15 you quoted proves my point completely, the man without the Spirit, does not accept the things of God, because he (cannot) understand them so please show us how He could ever make a (FREE WILL) Choice to follow God then, He simply can't. no matter what. You misquoted Rom 8:7..> because the carnal mind is enimity (ENEMY) against God, for it is (not subject), to the law of God, (Neither indeed can be).
Please show me (FREE WILL) here in fact show me the words Free Will anywhere in scripture. it's not there because there is no such thing as Free Will anything but GOD Himself.
Doesn't it say “for He (God) works in us (Both to (WILL) and do His good pleasure.”
You need to deal with these scriptures and all the rest of them that shows man is unable to make a so call free will choice to serve God , or for that matter nothing else He chooses is not a “free Will” choice every thing a man does He is caused to do it , thats why righteousness is a creation and not a Free will choice. “for you are (CREATED) unto good” works.
IMO…………gene
I already have dealt with those scriptures..you interperet one way..I another…we both follow Christ..so what really are we trying to prove..as I said earlier…we are saying essentially the same thingQuote (dirtyknections @ June 21 2008,05:49) I understand what you are saying…but the fact of the matter is..the bible says God does not try us with [moral] evil…and that [moral] evil can not come from him because he is pure and ultimately is love…and HE NEVER took or takes responsibility for the type of evil that originated with the Devil…because he is pure and is not capable of it This is what you are not understanding from my view..you say that my life will be so much easier when i realize that God is in complete control of it…and that since God is in control I can never turn away from him
I say I have already come to that conclusion…the difference is… is that at anytime I know I can willfully turn from God…but because I choose to let him lead me..that will never happen…
There is not much difference in what we are saying..honestly
remember this post2 Timothy 2:14…….14Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.
Blessings
Quote (dirtyknections @ June 25 2008,01:22) The Scriptures show that God extends to such creatures the privilege and responsibility of free choice, of exercising free moral agency (De 30:19, 20; Jos 24:15), thereby making them accountable for their acts. (Ge 2:16, 17; 3:11-19; Ro 14:10-12; Heb 4:13) They are thus not mere automatons, or robots. Man could not truly have been created in “God’s image” if he were not a free moral agent. (Ge 1:26, 27) Logically, there should be no conflict between God’s foreknowledge (as well as his foreordaining) and the free moral agency of his intelligent creatures. This concept would mean that, prior to creating angels or earthling man, God exercised his powers of foreknowledge and foresaw and foreknew all that would result from such creation, including the rebellion of one of his spirit sons, the subsequent rebellion of the first human pair in Eden (Ge 3:1-6; Joh 8:44), and all the bad consequences of such rebellion down to and beyond this present day. This would necessarily mean that all the wickedness that history has recorded (the crime and immorality, oppression and resultant suffering, lying and hypocrisy, false worship and idolatry) once existed, before creation’s beginning, only in the mind of God, in the form of his foreknowledge of the future in all of its minutest details.
If the Creator of mankind had indeed exercised his power to foreknow all that history has seen since man’s creation, then the full weight of all the wickedness thereafter resulting was deliberately set in motion by God when he spoke the words: “Let us make man.” (Ge 1:26) These facts bring into question the reasonableness and consistency of the predestinarian concept; particularly so, since the disciple James shows that disorder and other vile things do not originate from God’s heavenly presence but are “earthly, animal, demonic” in source.—Jas 3:14-18.
The alternative to predestinarianism, the selective or discretionary exercise of God’s powers of foreknowledge, would have to harmonize with God’s own righteous standards and be consistent with what he reveals of himself in his Word. In contrast with the theory of predestinarianism, a number of texts point to an examination by God of a situation then current and a decision made on the basis of such examination.
Thus, at Genesis 11:5-8 God is described as directing his attention earthward, surveying the situation at Babel, and, at that time, determining the action to be taken to break up the unrighteous project there. After wickedness developed at Sodom and Gomorrah, GOD advised Abraham of his decision to investigate (by means of his angels) to “see whether they act altogether according to the outcry over it that has come to me, and, if not, I can get to know it.” (Ge 18:20-22; 19:1) God spoke of ‘becoming acquainted with Abraham,’ and after Abraham went to the point of attempting to sacrifice Isaac, GOD said, “For now I do know that you are God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me.”—Ge 18:19; 22:11, 12; compare Ne 9:7, 8; Ga 4:9.
Selective foreknowledge means that God could choose not to foreknow indiscriminately all the future acts of his creatures. This would mean that, rather than all history from creation onward being a mere rerun of what had already been foreseen and foreordained, God could with all sincerity set before the first human pair the prospect of everlasting life in an earth free from wickedness. His instructions to his first human son and daughter to act as his perfect and sinless agents in filling the earth with their offspring and making it a paradise, as well as exercising control over the animal creation, could thus be expressed as the grant of a truly loving privilege and as his genuine desire toward them—not merely as the giving of a commission that, on their part, was foredoomed to failure. God’s arranging for a test by means of “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad” and his creation of “the tree of life” in the garden of Eden also would not be meaningless or cynical acts, made so by his foreknowing that the human pair would sin and never be able to eat of “the tree of life.”—Ge 1:28; 2:7-9, 15-17; 3:22-24.
To offer something very desirable to another person on conditions known beforehand to be unreachable is recognized as both hypocritical and cruel. The prospect of everlasting life is presented in God’s Word as a goal for all persons, one possible to attain. After urging his listeners to ‘keep on asking and seeking’ good things from God, Jesus pointed out that a father does not give a stone or a serpent to his child that asks for bread or a fish. Showing his Father’s view of disappointing the legitimate hopes of a person, Jesus then said: “Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to those asking him?”—Mt 7:7-11.
Thus, the invitations and opportunities to receive benefits and everlasting blessings set before all men by God are bona fide. (Mt 21:22; Jas 1:5, 6) He can in all sincerity urge men to ‘turn back from transgression and keep living,’ as he did with the people of Israel. (Eze 18:23, 30-32; compare Jer 29:11, 12.) Logically, he could not do this if he foreknew that they were individually destined to die in wickedness. (Compare Ac 17:30, 31; 1Ti 2:3, 4.) As GOD told Israel: “Nor said I to the seed of Jacob, ‘Seek me simply for nothing, you people.’ I am Jehovah, speaking what is righteous, telling what is upright. . . . Turn to me and be saved, all you at the ends of the earth.”—Isa 45:19-22.
In a similar vein, the apostle Peter writes: “GOD is not slow respecting his promise [of the coming day of reckoning], as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.” (2Pe 3:9) If God already foreknew and foreordained millenniums in advance precisely which individuals would receive eternal salvation and which individuals would receive eternal destruction, it may well be asked how meaningful such ‘patience’ of God could be and how genuine his desire could be that ‘all attain to repentance.’ The inspired apostle John wrote that “God is love,” and the apostle Paul states that love “hopes all things.” (1Jo 4:8; 1Co 13:4, 7) It is in harmony with this outstanding, divine quality that God should exercise a genuinely open, kindly attitude toward all persons, he being desirous of their gaining salvation, until they prove themselves unworthy, beyond hope. (Compare 2Pe 3:9; Heb 6:4-12.) Thus, the apostle Paul speaks of “the kindly quality of God [that] is trying to lead you to repentance.”—Ro 2:4-6.
Finally if, by God’s foreknowledge, the opportunity to receive the benefits of Christ Jesus’ ransom sacrifice were already irrevocably sealed off from some, perhaps for millions of individuals, even before their birth, so that such ones could never prove worthy, it could not truly be said that the ransom was made available to all men. (2Co 5:14, 15; 1Ti 2:5, 6; Heb 2:9) The impartiality of God is clearly no mere figure of speech. “In every nation the man that fears [God] and works righteousness is acceptable to him.” (Ac 10:34, 35; De 10:17; Ro 2:11) The option is actually and genuinely open to all men “to seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us.” (Ac 17:26, 27) There is no empty hope or hollow promise set forth, therefore, in the divine exhortation at the end of the book of Revelation inviting: “Let anyone hearing say: ‘Come!’ And let anyone thirsting come; let anyone that wishes take life’
s water free.”—Re 22:17.
This post has been copied from this web page:http://cfmin.wordpress.com/2007/08/26/predestination-or-free-will/
DK, I've seen you doing this more than once on here, it's called plagerism, can you acknowledge your sources please?
Isa 1:18…..> nearly all “christianity” believes as you stated thy view it the same way. From your and there view point You God does not Know the end from the beginning then there is no stability in His foreknowledge, there is not absolute Sovernty of God, because he doesn't really know the outcome of what He created and causes, there is not plan but just chaotic circumstances the constitutes the destiny of Man. A Monster God who subjected His creation to a Carnal mind ,that is His enemy, not subject to his laws (neither) indeed can be, and leaves them to figure out there how to make right choices by there so call Free Will natures. But what does scripture say “it is not within a man to direct His paths, So if it's not there How could He ever choose the right path then. And why would God work in Us to cause us both to WILL and Do His Good Pleasure then. Your stance fails to answer all these questions.
I believe everything was predestined and preplanned by an all wise creator and that includes the Fall of Man inorder to experience both Good and Evil, to learn the difference, if you believe there was a reason for the fall of man then your God is not in control of his creation and is unable to save any one, So 90% of all his creation will be cast into and everlasting inferno that So Called “CHRISTANITY”
IMO………..gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 26 2008,14:42) Isa 1:18…..> nearly all “christianity” believes as you stated thy view it the same way. From your and there view point You God does not Know the end from the beginning then there is no stability in His foreknowledge, there is not absolute Sovernty of God, because he doesn't really know the outcome of what He created and causes, there is not plan but just chaotic circumstances the constitutes the destiny of Man. A Monster God who subjected His creation to a Carnal mind ,that is His enemy, not subject to his laws (neither) indeed can be, and leaves them to figure out there how to make right choices by there so call Free Will natures. But what does scripture say “it is not within a man to direct His paths, So if it's not there How could He ever choose the right path then. And why would God work in Us to cause us both to WILL and Do His Good Pleasure then. Your stance fails to answer all these questions. I believe everything was predestined and preplanned by an all wise creator and that includes the Fall of Man inorder to experience both Good and Evil, to learn the difference, if you believe there was a reason for the fall of man then your God is not in control of his creation and is unable to save any one, So 90% of all his creation will be cast into and everlasting inferno that So Called “CHRISTANITY”
IMO………..gene
ask you always end your posts with..”IMO”Which makes it neither factual or right…as I said if we both follow Christ…whats the point
Quote (dirtyknections @ June 27 2008,01:25) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 26 2008,09:23) Quote (dirtyknections @ June 25 2008,01:22) The Scriptures show that God extends to such creatures the privilege and responsibility of free choice, of exercising free moral agency (De 30:19, 20; Jos 24:15), thereby making them accountable for their acts. (Ge 2:16, 17; 3:11-19; Ro 14:10-12; Heb 4:13) They are thus not mere automatons, or robots. Man could not truly have been created in “God’s image” if he were not a free moral agent. (Ge 1:26, 27) Logically, there should be no conflict between God’s foreknowledge (as well as his foreordaining) and the free moral agency of his intelligent creatures. This concept would mean that, prior to creating angels or earthling man, God exercised his powers of foreknowledge and foresaw and foreknew all that would result from such creation, including the rebellion of one of his spirit sons, the subsequent rebellion of the first human pair in Eden (Ge 3:1-6; Joh 8:44), and all the bad consequences of such rebellion down to and beyond this present day. This would necessarily mean that all the wickedness that history has recorded (the crime and immorality, oppression and resultant suffering, lying and hypocrisy, false worship and idolatry) once existed, before creation’s beginning, only in the mind of God, in the form of his foreknowledge of the future in all of its minutest details.
If the Creator of mankind had indeed exercised his power to foreknow all that history has seen since man’s creation, then the full weight of all the wickedness thereafter resulting was deliberately set in motion by God when he spoke the words: “Let us make man.” (Ge 1:26) These facts bring into question the reasonableness and consistency of the predestinarian concept; particularly so, since the disciple James shows that disorder and other vile things do not originate from God’s heavenly presence but are “earthly, animal, demonic” in source.—Jas 3:14-18.
The alternative to predestinarianism, the selective or discretionary exercise of God’s powers of foreknowledge, would have to harmonize with God’s own righteous standards and be consistent with what he reveals of himself in his Word. In contrast with the theory of predestinarianism, a number of texts point to an examination by God of a situation then current and a decision made on the basis of such examination.
Thus, at Genesis 11:5-8 God is described as directing his attention earthward, surveying the situation at Babel, and, at that time, determining the action to be taken to break up the unrighteous project there. After wickedness developed at Sodom and Gomorrah, GOD advised Abraham of his decision to investigate (by means of his angels) to “see whether they act altogether according to the outcry over it that has come to me, and, if not, I can get to know it.” (Ge 18:20-22; 19:1) God spoke of ‘becoming acquainted with Abraham,’ and after Abraham went to the point of attempting to sacrifice Isaac, GOD said, “For now I do know that you are God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me.”—Ge 18:19; 22:11, 12; compare Ne 9:7, 8; Ga 4:9.
Selective foreknowledge means that God could choose not to foreknow indiscriminately all the future acts of his creatures. This would mean that, rather than all history from creation onward being a mere rerun of what had already been foreseen and foreordained, God could with all sincerity set before the first human pair the prospect of everlasting life in an earth free from wickedness. His instructions to his first human son and daughter to act as his perfect and sinless agents in filling the earth with their offspring and making it a paradise, as well as exercising control over the animal creation, could thus be expressed as the grant of a truly loving privilege and as his genuine desire toward them—not merely as the giving of a commission that, on their part, was foredoomed to failure. God’s arranging for a test by means of “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad” and his creation of “the tree of life” in the garden of Eden also would not be meaningless or cynical acts, made so by his foreknowing that the human pair would sin and never be able to eat of “the tree of life.”—Ge 1:28; 2:7-9, 15-17; 3:22-24.
To offer something very desirable to another person on conditions known beforehand to be unreachable is recognized as both hypocritical and cruel. The prospect of everlasting life is presented in God’s Word as a goal for all persons, one possible to attain. After urging his listeners to ‘keep on asking and seeking’ good things from God, Jesus pointed out that a father does not give a stone or a serpent to his child that asks for bread or a fish. Showing his Father’s view of disappointing the legitimate hopes of a person, Jesus then said: “Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to those asking him?”—Mt 7:7-11.
Thus, the invitations and opportunities to receive benefits and everlasting blessings set before all men by God are bona fide. (Mt 21:22; Jas 1:5, 6) He can in all sincerity urge men to ‘turn back from transgression and keep living,’ as he did with the people of Israel. (Eze 18:23, 30-32; compare Jer 29:11, 12.) Logically, he could not do this if he foreknew that they were individually destined to die in wickedness. (Compare Ac 17:30, 31; 1Ti 2:3, 4.) As GOD told Israel: “Nor said I to the seed of Jacob, ‘Seek me simply for nothing, you people.’ I am Jehovah, speaking what is righteous, telling what is upright. . . . Turn to me and be saved, all you at the ends of the earth.”—Isa 45:19-22.
In a similar vein, the apostle Peter writes: “GOD is not slow respecting his promise [of the coming day of reckoning], as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.” (2Pe 3:9) If God already foreknew and foreordained millenniums in advance precisely which individuals would receive eternal salvation and which individuals would receive eternal destruction, it may well be asked how meaningful such ‘patience’ of God could be and how genuine his desire could be that ‘all attain to repentance.’ The inspired apostle John wrote that “God is love,” and the apostle Paul states that love “hopes all things.” (1Jo 4:8; 1Co 13:4, 7) It is in harmony with this outstanding, divine quality that God should exercise a genuinely open, kindly attitude toward all persons, he being desirous of their gaining salvation, until they prove themselves unworthy, beyond hope. (Compare 2Pe 3:9; Heb 6:4-12.) Thus, the apostle Paul speaks of “the kindly quality of God [that] is trying to lead you to repentance.”—Ro 2:4-6.
Finally if, by God’s foreknowledge, the opportunity to receive the benefits of Christ Jesus’ ransom sacrifice were already irrevocably sealed off from some, perhaps for millions of individuals, even before their birth, so that such ones could never prove worthy, it could not truly be said that the ransom was made
available to all men. (2Co 5:14, 15; 1Ti 2:5, 6; Heb 2:9) The impartiality of God is clearly no mere figure of speech. “In every nation the man that fears [God] and works righteousness is acceptable to him.” (Ac 10:34, 35; De 10:17; Ro 2:11) The option is actually and genuinely open to all men “to seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us.” (Ac 17:26, 27) There is no empty hope or hollow promise set forth, therefore, in the divine exhortation at the end of the book of Revelation inviting: “Let anyone hearing say: ‘Come!’ And let anyone thirsting come; let anyone that wishes take life’s water free.”—Re 22:17.
This post has been copied from this web page:http://cfmin.wordpress.com/2007/08/26/predestination-or-free-will/
DK, I've seen you doing this more than once on here, it's called plagerism, can you acknowledge your sources please?
Actually..I DID NOT copy this post..from that source…that source copied it from the WTBTS Library which I own…Get your facts straight…I'm not the only one who posts from various libraries and commentaries…if you want to point me out..point out everybody…
Blessings
For the record that source only took bits and pieces it seems..Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 26 2008,09:23) DK, I've seen you doing this more than once on here, it's called plagerism, can you acknowledge your sources please?
Isaiah,How in the world do you know where to look to see if someone has plagerized something or not? That must take a huge amount of time to investigate? This must be a personal beef of yours, huh?
I personally don't care where people get their information unless they want to share. So long as the information is a good read, I could care less. And usually you can tell when a writer has copied something (like in David's posts a lot of times). There is the “voice of David” that we are familiar with, for instance, and then the “voice of the copied stuff” (which I usually scroll over to be honest).
Quote (Not3in1 @ June 27 2008,02:10) How in the world do you know where to look to see if someone has plagerized something or not? That must take a huge amount of time to investigate? This must be a personal beef of yours, huh?
Hi Mandy.
No, surprisingly it typically takes less than 10 seconds. Yeah, I do have a problem with it. Borrowing an idea or phrase here or there is one thing – there are very, very few original ideas floating around these days anyway. But cutting and pasting screeds of material without acknowledging the real author is another thing. I have seen people banned from message boards for doing it.Quote I personally don't care where people get their information unless they want to share. So long as the information is a good read, I could care less. And usually you can tell when a writer has copied something (like in David's posts a lot of times). There is the “voice of David” that we are familiar with, for instance, and then the “voice of the copied stuff” (which I usually scroll over to be honest).
It's not really an issue of acedemic protocol. In omitting to reference a work you, by default, claim it as your own. It's dishonest. DK will know this.Blessings
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 27 2008,19:29) Quote (Not3in1 @ June 27 2008,02:10) How in the world do you know where to look to see if someone has plagerized something or not? That must take a huge amount of time to investigate? This must be a personal beef of yours, huh?
Hi Mandy.
No, surprisingly it typically takes less than 10 seconds. Yeah, I do have a problem with it. Borrowing an idea or phrase here or there is one thing – there are very, very few original ideas floating around these days anyway. But cutting and pasting screeds of material without acknowledging the real author is another thing. I have seen people banned from message boards for doing it.Quote I personally don't care where people get their information unless they want to share. So long as the information is a good read, I could care less. And usually you can tell when a writer has copied something (like in David's posts a lot of times). There is the “voice of David” that we are familiar with, for instance, and then the “voice of the copied stuff” (which I usually scroll over to be honest).
It's not really an issue of acedemic protocol. In omitting to reference a work you, by default, claim it as your own. It's dishonest. DK will know this.Blessings
List the numerous other people who do this please… and maybe I will acknowledgebut…. God is omnipotent…. and nothing exists, begins to exist or goes out of existence except that He allows it to be so… AND…. since God is omniscient such that He always knew that evil would exist prior to evil ever coming into existence, whatever type of evil one wishes to speak of, so God, knowing full well the consequences of allowing evil to come into existence and allowing it to continue to existence, decided to allow evil to exist anyway… or, one who states the issues much better than I…
“First is the legal perspective. Consider the following illustration: If I, knowing my minor son’s intention beforehand, permitted him to commit a violent crime with the gun and the training I gave him, claiming as the ground for my own exoneration from all responsibility that, though I knew of his intention and did not prevent him, I warned him of the penalty for wrongdoing and that it was he, exercising his freedom (which I granted him), who chose the unlawful course of action, legal consensus would hold, on the ground of my knowledge of his planned course of action and my failure to restrain him by all lawful force, that I am an “accessory before and during the fact.” So in the case of God: If he determined that he would permit his rational creatures, using the gifts he gave them, to sin if they want to, and determined too that he would do nothing to interfere with their God-given freedom to do so, knowing however even before he created them—as he knows all other things as well in accordance with his all-comprehending prescience—that if he created them and permitted them to do so Adam and all other men would certainly sin, again legal consensus could rightly conclude that his informed creation of men who he knew would in fact sin makes God an “accessory before and during the fact,” that he is “in this sense” responsible for their sin, and accordingly that he must be judged “culpable” along with them….
Second, there are the theological problems implicit in Pinnock’s quasi-deistic description of God’s relationship to human actions as being that of “bare permissionism.” Gordon H. Clark has noted that bare permission to do evil, as opposed to positive causality, does not relieve God of involvement in some sense in man’s sin, inasmuch as it was God, after all, who made the world and man with the ability to sin in the first place. On grounds which the Arminian demands for him, God could have made both the world and man differently, or on these grounds, at the very least he could have made mankind with the freedom to do only good (as is the condition of the glorified saints in heaven). On these same grounds, an omniscient, omnipotent God could have found some way to prevent mankind from sinning without inhibiting them. It is clear then that if the Creator God simply permits a man to sin, he is still not totally unrelated to the event when that man does sin. John Calvin, responding to theologians in his day who were seeking to make the same distinction as does Pinnock between God’s decretive will and his mere permission, would have none of it. He writes:
They have recourse to the distinction between will and permission. By this they would maintain that the wicked perish because God permits it, not because he so wills. But why shall we say “permission” unless it is because God so wills? Still, it is not in itself likely that man brought destruction upon himself through himself, by God’s mere permission and without any ordaining. As if God did not establish the condition in which he wills the chief of his creatures to be! I shall not hesitate to confess with Augustine that “the will of God is the necessity of things,” and that what he has willed will of necessity come to pass.'
……. As Clark declares:
The idea of permission is possible only where there is an independent force [beyond the permitter’s control]. But this is not the situation in the case of God and the universe. Nothing in the universe can be independent of the Omnipotent Creator, for in him we live and move and have our being…. Therefore, the idea of [bare] permission makes no sense when applied to God.9
Furthermore, if God only “permits” people to make the choices they do, he does it either willingly or unwillingly. If he permits them unwillingly, then one can only conclude that something is more powerful than God and thus one “loses” God altogether, or rather he places the more powerful thing that countermands God’s will on God’s throne in his stead. But if God willingly permits men to make the choices they do, knowing as he knows all things that they will make sinful choices, and refuses to prevent them from making those choices, then Pinnock’s assertion of divine permission as half of the solution to the problem of sin does not provide the solution it is supposed to yield. Indeed, if God knows they will make wrong choices before they do so, then their future acts are certain and can be nothing other than certain, and again “bare permission” is shown to be an inadequate irrelevancy.”
Reymond, Robert L.: A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Nashville : T. Nelson, 1998, S. 350blessings,
KenHi E,
Psalm 50:6
And the heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God is judge himself. Selah.Judge God?
Job had something to say about that.Hi Epistemaniac,
Those are some deeper thoughts. Yes God is in full control of His creation otherwise He is not the creator. But as you said He allows creation to move within certain boundaries as mnetioned in Acts 1726 “And hath made of one, all mankind, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, determining appointed times and the limits of their habitation. 27 That they should seek God, if haply they may feel after him or find him, although he be not far from every one of us”.
peace to you
AdamHi E,
Do you find the thoughts of theologians very revealing?
Is it not better to drink from the source yourself ?Hi epistemaniac.
Good post, very thought provoking, enjoyed reading it. May I disagree on the first few sentences? “…and since God is omnisciemt (difficult to spell), You say, not your exact words, that “God knew evil would exist priour to it coming into existence”. I believe that nothing can “come” into existence without God creating it, can there be another creator? I think not. Nothing can come into existence without God creating it. I believe Isaiah.46:6-9 says “God created evil”. Just my opinion, what do you think.Blessings.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
