The man of Romans 7

[Robert]

 First of all, Romans 9 isn't even talking about about Esau and Jacob as individuals, which the very next verse, verse 12, makes clear.  

The descendants of Esau rejected God....It started with Esau the individual.  God saw both of these events before they happened.  How?  That's for Deity to know.... 

Edited August 17, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Regarding your assertion that God knew Lucifer would sin but created him anyway, there is still the same problem there has been all along, which is that if this were the case, then God would be responsible for the entrance of sin.....

God is responsible for allowing sin....

Edited August 17, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Ps 139:3 " O LORD, you have examined my heart and know everything about me....4 You know what I am going to say even before I say it...."

Is 46:9 "For I alone am God! I am God, and there is none like me. 10 Only I can tell you the future before it even happens..."

 

 

[pnattmbtc]

I'm not speculating anything, but pointing out that the question at issue is what the nature of the future is.  How can this be viewed as a speculation?

Robert:You are attempting to use your human mind to grasp the things of God, namely His foreknowledge.  That's speculation.

Of course I'm trying to use my human mind.  That's the only mind I have.  Since you also have a human mind, it must follow that everything your write is speculation too, so I have company. 

[pnattmbtc]

What I am pointing out is that the future may be different from the past, not determined, with the consequence that God, being omniscient, sees that future not as determined (which it isn't), but as undetemined, meaning it does not consist of a single possibility.

Robert:Again, speculation.  You don't know how God knows....You are speculating.

I'm doing nothing different than you are.  I'm examining evidence and trying to reach conclusions.  Just because someone reaches a  different conclusion than you do doesn't mean they are speculating.

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding your assertion that God knew Lucifer would sin but created him anyway, there is still the same problem there has been all along, which is that if this were the case, then God would be responsible for the entrance of sin.....

Robert: God is responsible for allowing sin....

It is true that God allowed sin (I don't know why you phrase this as "God is responsible for allowing sin"), but this isn't the issue.  The issue is, under your view, God would have set in motion a course of action which could only result in sin, which is much more than simply allowing sin.  You can see that, can't you? 

[pnattmbtc]

First of all, Romans 9 isn't even talking about about Esau and Jacob as individuals, which the very next verse, verse 12, makes clear.  

Robert: The descendants of Esau rejected God....It started with Esau the individual.  God saw both of these events before they happened.  How?  That's for Deity to know.... 

As I pointed out, the context of the text is not Esau the individual.  Esau the individual never served Jacob the individual.  Also, once again, the issue is not God's foreknowledge, but the nature of the future. 

[pnattmbtc]

Ps 139:3 " O LORD, you have examined my heart and know everything about me....4 You know what I am going to say even before I say it...."

Is 46:9 "For I alone am God! I am God, and there is none like me. 10 Only I can tell you the future before it even happens..."

These are out of context too, and are dealing with the wrong subject!  This reminds me of Cool Hand Luke, "What we've got here is failure to communicate".

I'm not sure how to put this any more clearly, but the issue is not God's foreknowledge, but the nature of the future.  I guess I can stop here and ask if you understand the point I'm making here.  I'm asking because you keep bringing up texts which deal with God's foreknowledge.  It's not *whether* God sees the future (He does), but *what* future does God see?  Does He see a fixed future? (i.e., just like the past).  Or does He see something else, a fluid/dynamic/not fixed future (different than the past).

Is the future fundamentally like the past, or fundamentally different?

[Robert]

 

The issue is, under your view, God would have set in motion a course of action which could only result in sin, which is much more than simply allowing sin.  You can see that, can't you? 

That's your view....

[Robert]

It's not *whether* God sees the future (He does), but *what* future does God see?  Does He see a fixed future? (i.e., just like the past).  Or does He see something else, a fluid/dynamic/not fixed future (different than the past).

Why don't you ask God....

Edited August 18, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

These are out of context too, and are dealing with the wrong subject!  This reminds me of Cool Hand Luke, "What we've got here is failure to communicate".

Anytime you disagree with something I've quoted you state it's out of context.  The communication problem is yours, not mine... The point is God "can tell you the future before it even happens."

[Robert]

As I pointed out, the context of the text is not Esau the individual.  Esau the individual never served Jacob the individual.  Also, once again, the issue is not God's foreknowledge, but the nature of the future. 

That doesn't negate the fact that God knew Esau would reject His birthright. 

[Robert]

 

I'm doing nothing different than you are.  I'm examining evidence and trying to reach conclusions.  Just because someone reaches a  different conclusion than you do doesn't mean they are speculating.

I have no absolute conclusion why God created Lucifer knowing that he would rebel....The fact is He knew.  Outside that is speculation.....

Edited August 18, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

 The fact that God is omniscient means that He foreknew that Lucifer, the light bearer, would become Satan, the accuser. Since God is omnipotent, sin and evil exist because God permits them to exist. Why did He permit them to exist? That is your question.

 

Some theologians have established a distinction between the nature of Lucifer and his will. His nature, as created by God, was good; but his will, as used by him, led to sin and evil. God is responsible for the first but not for the second. The misuse of the will is based on, but not determined by, the freedom with which God invested His intelligent creatures.

 

But, could not God have avoided all of that by not creating Lucifer? The cost to Him would have been too high, in fact inconceivable. We have to use human analogies as we speculate about why God did what He did. At some moment in eternity God decided to create intelligent, free creatures. In His omniscience He knew that one of them would rebel against Him. Should He not at that moment change His plan? The natural human answer would be, "Yes!" We would give up our plan because we fear facing such a terrible problem. In doing that the anticipated problem defeated us by forcing us to change our plans.

 

But God is not like us! Once He decided to create, no real or potential force would force Him to alter His plans. Otherwise, the fear of sin would have defeated Him before He created anything. God is the Fearless One, who, without changing His plan, decided to confront the problem of sin and evil and resolve it once and for all through His Son. And He did! Perhaps that's what happened. Who knows? I certainly don't. [ Biblical Research Institute General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Ángel Manuel Rodríguez]

[Robert]

 The fact that God is omniscient means that He foreknew that Lucifer, the light bearer, would become Satan, the accuser. Since God is omnipotent, sin and evil exist because God permits them to exist. Why did He permit them to exist? .... Who knows? I certainly don't. [ Biblical Research Institute General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Ángel Manuel Rodríguez]

 "...the Bible informs us how and why evil came about, it does not tell us why God allowed it to happen. However, we do know that God is all wise and all knowing and that He has reasons for allowing things to happen that are beyond our comprehension." [Josh McDowell]

 

[pnattmbtc]

Robert, for the most part, you're not addressing the issue.  Any quotes you have regarding why God allowed sin are off point.  The question is not why God would allow sin, but why would He cause it to happen.

For example, consider the Rodgriques response.  He writes, "But, could not God have avoided all of that by not creating Lucifer? The cost to Him would have been too high, in fact inconceivable."  What cost?  There is no cost to not creating sin.  It would have only been upsaide.

Also Angel speaks of God's altering His plan.  This is where the lack of reasoning things through is showing.  Before God created intelligent beings, why would Angel think God would only have one plan?  There's no reason for this.  If a lonely human being is considering something, like building a bridge, he considers many alternatives; where to put the bridge, what materials to use, etc.  Surely the infinite God wouldn't be limited to just one idea.  Why would He be?  That doesn't make sense.

How many possibilities can God imagine?  Since His intelligence is unlimited, the answer is limitless.  Now at the point where God is planning creation, these possibilities are only in God's head.  Why would God choose one of the possibilities which leads to sin?  This makes no sense.  The idea that there is cost involved by preferring one of the ones with sin over one of the ones without sin is preposterous.  Clearly it's the other way around; the options with sin are the costly ones, and there downside is horrific.

Don't you think if God could have avoided all the horrow and suffering related to sin that He would have done so?  Everything about God's character points to this.

[pnattmbtc]

These are out of context too, and are dealing with the wrong subject!  This reminds me of Cool Hand Luke, "What we've got here is failure to communicate".

Robert:Anytime you disagree with something I've quoted you state it's out of context.  The communication problem is yours, not mine... The point is God "can tell you the future before it even happens."

I point out it's out of context when it is out of context.  There are many times I make other arguments.  I even allow for things (like your statements regarding Romans 9) being out of context, and still respond to them.

But here being out of context is the whole point.  The issue is not God's foreknowledge, but the nature of the future.

At the point that God decided to make beings with free will, how many ways could He have done this?  Only one, or many?

[Robert]

The question is not why God would allow sin, but why would He cause it to happen.

Slow down....God didn't cause it, He allowed it.  Lucifer is the one who invented self-love, not God. 

God is accepting the blame, but ultimately the blame will be placed where it belongs, i.e., on Satan in "the day of atonement".

[pnattmbtc]

Robert: Slow down....God didn't cause it, He allowed it.  Lucifer is the one who invented self-love, not God. 

God is accepting the blame, but ultimately the blame will be placed where it belongs, i.e., on Satan in "the day of atonement".

I head you saying that you believe that God set into motion a course of action which would inevitably lead to sin.  If God did this, then how can you assert that God didn't cause it?  "Cause" means "a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition."  This is what you are asserting, that God gave rise to the condition of sin by creating a being He knew would sin.  What makes it especially the case that there is a causal relationship here is that God need not have done this; God could have created beings with free will that wouldn't sin.  Why didn't God do that instead?  You keep saying, "I don't know", but that's not an adequate response.  Preferable would be to let go your ideas which are leading you into the pickle in the first place, ideas which are not based on Scripture, but just how you happen to view the future.  If one treats the future instead as a collection of possibilities as opposed to something fixed, then the pickle goes away.

Scripture does not present the idea of a fixed future.  There are many examples which show this. 

[Robert]

....God could have created beings with free will that wouldn't sin.  Why didn't God do that instead?  You keep saying, "I don't know", but that's not an adequate response.  

Tough for you, but that's not my problem.  I trust God at the end of the day...I have a feeling you'd riddle Him with questions....

[Robert]

Preferable would be to let go your ideas which are leading you into the pickle in the first place, ideas which are not based on Scripture, but just how you happen to view the future.  If one treats the future instead as a collection of possibilities as opposed to something fixed, then the pickle goes away.

Scripture does not present the idea of a fixed future.  There are many examples which show this. 

You are coming off a know-it-all.  What does the Bible say about pride in one's intellect?  

Edited August 18, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

God is accepting the blame, but ultimately the blame will be placed where it belongs, i.e., on Satan in "the day of atonement".

http://www.jacksequeira.org/sanctuary24.htm

[pnattmbtc]

God could have created beings with free will that wouldn't sin.  Why didn't God do that instead?  You keep saying, "I don't know", but that's not an adequate response.  

Robert: Tough for you, but that's not my problem.  I trust God at the end of the day...I have a feeling you'd riddle Him with questions.

 It absolutely is your problem.  God doesn't want us to "trust" Him in a robotic way, where we "believe" what He says with no conviction that it actually makes sense, or is reasonable.  Scripture says we should be able to give a reason for the things we believe,as well as that our giving of ourselves to God is our "reasonable service."  The theodicy question (why evil exists if there is an all-powerful and loving God) has been called things like "the only question that matters" and "the question of questions".  This is something I've thought about literally for decades.  I'm happy to converse with you about it, but I strongly believe this is something that God cares about, that is, that He wants us to care about, not simply "trust" Him without considering evidence or the why of things.

Regarding "riddling Him with questions," that's an interesting observation, but I believe that God wants us to question Him (reverently, of course), and that if we don't believe this to be the case, our concept of God's character is seriously amiss.  Consider John 15, for example, where Jesus explains that he considered His disciples to be friends rather than servants because a servant doesn't know what his master is doing, but he (Jesus) has told us all things. 

[pnattmbtc]

Preferable would be to let go your ideas which are leading you into the pickle in the first place, ideas which are not based on Scripture, but just how you happen to view the future.  If one treats the future instead as a collection of possibilities as opposed to something fixed, then the pickle goes away.

Scripture does not present the idea of a fixed future.  There are many examples which show this. 

Robert: You are coming off a know-it-all.  What does the Bible say about pride in one's intellect?  

 I don't think so.  I try to be careful with my tone.  It's difficult to get that right on a dry medium like the internet, but I try my best.  I apologize if I've made a mistake somewhere, but just because I might know something you don't does not make me a "know it all" in my mind.  I've learned things from your posts.  I try to read what you write, as well as others, with an open mind, and learn what I can when you say something I didn't know.  Truth is truth regardless of the source.

At any rate, this isn't a response to the point, which point I don't think you ever have responded to, although I've repeatedly raised it. (i.e., the point about the future being fixed).

Basically what I'm arguing is this:

1.You have a view of the future, that it can be seen as something settled.

2.This idea is not based on Scripture, but is just an idea you have (and many others) just because you've grown up in a culture where this idea is common.

3.This idea leads to falsehoods, such as God set in motion a course of events which inevitably led to sin.

4.Therefore the idea, that the future is settled, is false.

[Robert]

1.You have a view of the future, that it can be seen as something settled.

That's your spin....You are putting words in my mouth.

Pnattmbtc.  I not interesting in your speculations because ultimately you are making your mind the measuring stick of truth and that always leads to unbelief...always.