Sin in light of exhaustive determinism

squirrelyguy said:
A Muslim apologist could use that same logic to reason against the Incarnation. Shouldn't we Christians (among all people) be the quickest to acknowledge God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture, regardless of how this self-revelation defies our logic?

In fact it seems to me that if you believe in the Incarnation, there's pretty much no self-limitation one can ascribe to God that you can't logically entertain. Not to mention the belief that God in the flesh actually died and was buried.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good. God reacting to choices violates aseity.
 
SovereignGrace said:
As if they/he cares.
Click to expand...
Correct, I don't care. Shouldn't we allow God to describe Himself for us in the Bible and to simply accept that self-description, regardless of whether it conforms with how we can logically conceive of Him? I'm sure that's what we would both say to a Muslim apologist; isn't it good enough for ourselves?
 
Reformedguy said:
That's all well and good. God reacting to choices violates aseity.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily…
This is where the distinction needs to be made between The Transcendent Creator Sustainer God, as the outeracting Author of all things, and his predetermined (written in) character interactions with the other created characters in his story.

The Author of a book does not “react” to new information that his characters produce but this does not mean the Author can not write himself into the Storyline Level as a character “reacting” to other characters within the story.

I believe this destination preserves both God’s aseity and allows for a proper understanding of those verses in scripture that show God as “reacting” to us.

…
 
Sketo said:
Not necessarily…
This is where the distinction needs to be made between The Transcendent Creator Sustainer God, as the outeracting Author of all things, and his predetermined (written in) character interactions with the other created characters in his story.

The Author of a book does not “react” to new information that his characters produce but this does not mean the Author can not write himself into the Storyline Level as a character “reacting” to other characters within the story.

I believe this destination preserves both God’s aseity and allows for a proper understanding of those verses in scripture that show God as “reacting” to us.

…
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Dizerner said:
We should argue that it is not consistent with a maximally loving character to do such a thing.
Click to expand...

I can't find any Scripture which teaches God is allegedly "maximally loving".

Dizerner said:
That is, God doesn't do it because he couldn't do it, he does it because he wouldn't do it.
Click to expand...

Where does Scripture tell us what God "would" do?
Or is that nothing but extra-Biblical speculation on your part?
 
squirrelyguy said:
Correct, I don't care. Shouldn't we allow God to describe Himself for us in the Bible and to simply accept that self-description, regardless of whether it conforms with how we can logically conceive of Him?
Click to expand...

Then why do you refuse to do that?
Your entire OP seems to be a whiny rant that God doesn't do things the way YOU think He should do them, as if God answers to you.
 
squirrelyguy said:
If God wanted to have a reason to justify damning most of humanity to eternal suffering, why did He need to ordain sin to do it? It seems to me that if Calvinism is true, then God could just as easily have decided to condemn as many humans and angels He wanted without having them become sinners. Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? If that answer works for Calvinism, why wouldn't it work just the same if God were to condemn perfect beings to eternal torment? This seems especially problematic for Calvinism in my view because Christ had to condescend to become one of us and to be crucified by sinners in order to redeem the ones that God ordained to sin, but didn't want to condemn.
Click to expand...
Condemning perfect beings violates his justice.
 
Simpletruther said:
Condemning perfect beings violates his justice.
Click to expand...
Why would it? If you're a Calvinist, you already believe God ordains the fall of perfect beings as a reason for condemning them, and that this doesn't violate His justice. Does the potter have a right over the clay?
 
squirrelyguy said:
Why would it? If you're a Calvinist, you already believe God ordains the fall of perfect beings as a reason for condemning them, and that this doesn't violate His justice. Does the potter have a right over the clay?
Click to expand...
What does scripture say? He punishes the wicked and gives grace to the humble.

Punishing the righteous would be unjust.

So it seems unjust to you for God to ordain the fall?
 
Last edited:
Theo1689 said:
I can't find any Scripture which teaches God is allegedly "maximally loving".
Click to expand...

No verse says "God is maximally holy," etc., we deduce it by the description of God.

When we read God IS love and his tender mercies are over ALL his works, we deduce God's attributes, just as God is not partially holy, so he is not partially loving.

Name ONE other attribute that God is partially, besides the claim of love, to suit Calvinistic doctrine.

Theo1689 said:
Where does Scripture tell us what God "would" do?
Click to expand...

All over the place, did you even read it?

God said he "would" never lie, God said he "would" spare the wicked if they repent, why do you exhaust me to paste in thousands of obvious statements to back a point you should automatically see?

Theo1689 said:
Or is that nothing but extra-Biblical speculation on your part?
Click to expand...

If you want to claim a person is wrongly motivated, it doesn't matter HOW good their arguments are.

Insults will flow like a stream.
 
Dizerner said:
How would it be unjust?

Why can't God do what he wants with his own creation?!

I'm an Arminian, and even I acknowledge this point...
Click to expand...
Psalm 37 39 The salvation of the righteous is from the Lord;
he is their stronghold in the time of trouble.
40 The Lord helps them and delivers them;
he delivers them from the wicked and saves them,
because they take refuge in him

This is a reflection of the character of God.

GOD is love and he is just.
 
Simpletruther said:
This is a reflection of the character of God.

GOD is love and he is just.
Click to expand...

I agree that God is just, but your sense of justice is incorrect if it is not based in God being able to do whatever he wants.

19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"
20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? (Rom. 9:19-20 NKJ)

The fact that God is love invalidates that he would abuse his position and ability to justly create things just to condemn them.
 
Dizerner said:
I agree that God is just, but your sense of justice is incorrect if it is not based in God being able to do whatever he wants.

19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"
20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? (Rom. 9:19-20 NKJ)

The fact that God is love invalidates that he would abuse his position and ability to justly create things just to condemn them.
Click to expand...
So you define justice "do anything whatsoever"?

Seems kind of meaningless
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top