How's This?
Posted on 04/19/2003 7:32:39 AM PDT by drstevej
Now do you presume to be Judge and prosecution? i think not. (btw, will get to your freepmail inquiry asap).
If it please the court, the prosecution has yet to produce a single shred of evidence for free will aside from that being an attribute of the Allmighty God! What the Prosecution has produced is nothing more than the Kantian assertion that "ought implies can" which is not acceptable from even an Arminian perspective, as this line of reasoning leads one to the heretical Full Pelagian position.
I will give you one verse that clearly demonstrates that God intends man to make up his own mind in regard to his dealings with God:
Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
The choice is there. God has surrendered to man the freewill to respond, to choose betwen life and death, blessing or cursing and he has given man the adivce to Choose life.
On the contrary, the context of the Deuteronomy Passage proves that ought does not imply can. The passage continues:
15) And the LORD appeared in the tabernacle in a pillar of a cloud: and the pillar of the cloud stood over the door of the tabernacle.
16) And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.
17) Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?
18) And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods.
19) Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach it the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel.
20) For when I shall have brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers, that floweth with milk and honey; and they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxen fat; then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and provoke me, and break my covenant.
21) And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are befallen them, that this song shall testify against them as a witness; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed: for I know their imagination which they go about, even now, before I have brought them into the land which I sware.Deuteronomy 31:15-21 KJV, emphasis by me
God did indeed give them a law which He knew that they would not and could not keep.
i'm going to edit your post somewhat, because you forgot to close off the italics in the section where you comment, took me a second to realise that.
IF God has perfect foreknowlege of all things, including the possible contingincies (forgive the spelling!) THEN He, in going ahead with that particular creation, is the ultimate cause of evil and sin
What God created was good. When God gave to his creation the free will to choose life or to choose death, to love God or rebel against him, it was good. Now your saying that because the potential for evil exists within something good, that the creator of that good actually created something evil. That is a logical fallacy. It is the same as saying that because A follows B, that A necessarily caused B. Thus even though evil followed God's creation, it does not follow that God created evil. Evil was created by those who chose to exercise their God-Given free-will to rebel against their Creator.
What God created is indeed called good by God. You have left something out, The creation is by and large without any will AT ALL! It is not sentient any more than the rocks in my garden are. Yet, even though the majority of the creation is not responsible for evil, indeed is incabable of holding any responsibility, and that includes wildlife, God cursed the entire creation.
As for the rest of it, you have committed a logical falacy of your own: It is an unproven assertion that Choice = Free will. All Calvinist believe that man makes choices, we simply say that he is not free because he cannot by virtue of his fallen nature do good or choose good for good's sake (i am allowing for enlightened self-interest, which all men have). This is the testimony of scripture (Romans 3:9-20).
Concerning your potential for sin argument. This neccessarily begs the question of how that potential got to be there. On the contrary, i am quite logical on this point. This is one of the most basic laws of logic with out which we have no knowlege at all. It is codified as follows:
Those anticeedent causes (which become effects in other relationships) must have an Ultimate Cause. In the case of Lucifer, the cause HAD to be God. The single argument remains...God, having perfect foreknowlege of Lucifer's behavior, chose none the less to create Lucifer, in effect, ordaining him to condemnation.
Thus while it is true that Evil came about by the creation of something good, it cannot be said that the intent of the creator was to create evil. Morphine is good if you are in pain, it is evil if it is used improperly. The person who discovered Morphine created Morphine. Morphine was intended to alleviate pain and in that sense it is good. It, like all of God's creation, is subject to misuse. God is not responsible for the misuse of that which is Good, unless God actually causes the misuse. I don't believe god makes men sin. I therefore don't believe that God created evil. Unless you can claim that God really really really wants men to sin against him, then you can't claim that God created evil. And if you wish to claim that God is like that, then God not only created evil, but God IS evil.
If evil came about by the creation of something good then the words of Jesus are contradicted:
16) Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17) Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18) A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
As for the intention of the Allmighty, think about your statement for a second. The God who has perfect forknowlege of everything that can be and everything that could have been, could have easily avoided the entrance of evil into the creation by simply choosing a different alternative, YET DID NOT DO SO! It must have then been His will to have evil in the creation. The morphine illustration is not an analog, because the Law of unintended consequences does not apply to a God with perfect foreknowlege.
It appears that you have yet to explain how evil can come about in a good creation (to include Lucifer), unless God wills it to be so.
Take your best shot at that one Marlowe.
How's This?
In your opinion did god ACTIVELY set out to create evil, or did God create a universe, (a universe in which his creation was given the ability to rebel against his perfect will) in which evil was inevitable?
In other words was it God's hope that there would be evil in the universe or was it God's permissive will that there would be evil -- that evil would occur -- and that ultimately this would glorify him?
Seems to me that some of you guys believe that God really really really liked the idea of an evil and wicked universe and that it was his intention to make men so that they would commit all manner of murder and blasphemy just because it pleased God that they do so.
Was evil the perfect will of God or was it something that came about through the permissive will of God.
Corin, lighten up. Over on the Catholic Threads I have run across people who really think they are drinking blood and eating human/God flesh at the sacrament table. Talk about a bunch of blood suckers. Yeeshh.
There is obviously a problem with definitions going on here. There also appears to be a cadre of hyper-Calvinists lurinking and posting, even though no true hyper-Calvinist would ever admit to being a hyper Calvinist-- they just assume that normal Calvinists are Arminians.
Beg your pardon? Where is that written?
Nah, "hyper-calvinist" is always reserved for someone more Calvinist than the speaker is. As such, it in reality means nothing. To some Arminians, there is no such thing as a moderate Calvinist -- they're all hyper. But no Calvinist claims to be a hyper-Calvinist. Ergo, the term is of limited usefulness.
For instance, to some in this discussion, I am a hyper-calvinist since I am a 5-pointer who leans supralapsarian. But I certainly do not consider myself "hyper," since there are those on this board more extreme than I.
Ok, I get it.
Thanks.
Moros.
Applying your logic to the idea of creation, it would have to be said that a Good Creation cannot bring forth the creation of Evil but a corrupt creation would bring forth evil.
Applying Matthew 7:17-18 to the creation we see that evil exists as part of the creation and therefore contrary to what God said when he completed it, the creation was not good, it was corrupt.
So are you really sure you want to apply Matthew 7:17-18 to all things. Or should we just limit it to trees?
You really should not bear false witness in your tag line. It is unbecoming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.