Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[mfbukowski]

LDS would say that God cannot contradict himself, cannot violate natural law. So, the answer is that he cannot create a being, ex nihlo, that would have free will.

I would say more that he cannot in the sense that I personally cannot kill babies for fun. I would die before doing that, if forced. Yet I am pretty good with all kinds of weapons and certainly know how to use them.

It is not "cannot" in the sense of lack of skill or ability, it is "cannot" in the sense that to do so would violate who I am and what I have devoted my life to becoming.

[mfbukowski]

It basically comes down to sola scriptura (only the Bible), or continuing revelation from those claiming to be prophets.

The only problem there of course is that the bible itself is revelation and there is no way of knowing it is "true" in the first place without personal revelation.

But I have brought up that point many times and no EV has ever answered that- not Rob Bowman, not anyone. There have been some fairly well known anti Mormon sola scriptura folks show up here and not a single one has ever answered that.

Usually they cite historical evidence for the bible.

Historical evidence is irrelevant to religious belief for reasons I have detailed many times before. That's like saying because Martin Luther was a historical figure, we should all be Lutherans.

Because historical people believed the bible, that, of course, does not make it "true" any more than the historical teachings of Zoroaster make Zoroastrian's beliefs true.

Of course it doesn't make them false either- whatever those words mean in this context anyway.

[mfbukowski]

I do agree that the crux of our differences comes down to where we get truth from.

All LDS make a note of this. He is right.

The Aristotelian correspondence theory of truth is antithetical to the true gospel. A theory of truth which is invented by a pagan Greek is antithetical to biblical truth, and makes science and religion incompatible, hence all the Creation/Evolution nonsense.

A correct conception of truth makes religion and science perfectly compatible. Sorry to post this again- but for those who have not seen it, here it is again Rorty himself is an agnostic, but he exemplifies a view of truth which is perfectly compatible with religion. You only need to watch the first 45 minutes or so.

[mfbukowski]

You dont see a difference between all I have said and the LDS plan of salvation? You must be a Calvinist, my answer would be that God is able to set all laws that He wishes rather than being subject to Laws that precede Him.

Uh, Cal is hardly a Calvinist but I see the distinction you are making.

I personally prefer the view that God made the laws and simply decides not to violate them (usually).

Yet really this is a semantic problem because it makes no difference if the laws came before or after, much as the Constitution which was written before my birth (by two or three years I think) does not limit my freedom, but adds to it, and because I accept its principles as my own.

One could argue the 10 commandments, because they came "before" us, on this line of reasoning, therefore limit our freedom

And then we have the problem of what "natural law" is in the first place. It's kind of like "natural bread" and "unnatural bread" or "organic noodles".

If it exists, in one sense or another, it is "natural", and if it is alive, it is "organic".

If God created nature, anything he does is "natural". One can always argue that he uses principles which APPEAR unnatural, or "supernatural" in the same way a cellphone would be "miraculous" in the 14th century.

If God did not create nature, anything that happens is also "natural", so the reality is that these distinctions are all semantic anyway. You can use the same words to argue both sides of the proposition.

You can argue any point by making a distinction in definitions or collapsing a definition by saying "this is really the same because....."

It's all just words!

God loves us, and can do all he needs to do to bring us back to him- that is all that matters.

[Five Solas]

what an illuminating thread! (just read the whole thing.) and spawned out of such a dubious one (referred to in the OP). the seemingly inevitable "Rorty" YouTube link near the end, notwithstanding. tax imposed around here, I guess

;0)

--Erik

PS. I'm teasing, mfbukowski, and I actually have listened to a couple of them...

[Calm]

The other the Parents create the will from their own loins, the child born didn't exist before.

Not according to LDS belief, only the body doesn't exist before (in the sense of being organized in that particular way, its elements have always existed), the intelligence is eternal and God the Father created/organized out of preexisting spiritual elements the spirit that bonded with that as the body bonds with both. The will is likely manifested though all three aspects (separating them is really just theoretical, they operate as one), but the ultimate source is the eternal nature, the intelligence. Edited August 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[Bernard Gui]

My theory as to why did God go through all this trouble, I think the greatest reason is to share his love/life/relationship with others.

Are you saying God was lonely?

[Bernard Gui]

Given that then God's purpose is clear, he simply delights so much in himself that this delight overflows into creation and redemption. It is natural for God to want to create beings who can perceive his beauties and to whom he can share his delight in himself with. As Jonathan Edwards (18th centuray theologian) says about this..it is no deficiency in a fountain that it is prone to overflow. To apply C.S Lewis's quote to God you could almost say that in a sense Gods excitement in Himself spontaneously overflowed into praising his own greatness in creation and redemption.

If this is so, the creation of creatures who will loathe God and eventually be damned makes no sense. They serve no purpose.

[Bernard Gui]

This is heavy stuff but if you read this for what it says it says God endured the vessels or wrath prepared for destruction in order that He might make known His glory on the vessels of mercy prepared before hand for glory. Therefore God is glorified through those that are not saved, by those that are being able to see just how much they have been saved from.

Are you saying God destroys some of his creations in order to demonstrate mercy to others? Are his creations incapable of seeing the difference without someone having to suffer? It seems God's glory depends on the praise of those he doesn't damn.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[cdowis]

No. Logical contradictions God is not. Can he violate natural law? Of course. Did he part the Red Sea? Stop the Sun? Heal the sick?

He did not violate natural law. He merely used laws which are unknown to us.

You confine "natural law" to the very narrow understanding of man. Christ changed water to wine using natural laws known to himself.

In the past (In this thread) I've asked why this is, and the answer I've gotten is that it is contradictory. Which doesn't make sense to me. I don't see the contradiction. Anymore than a human couple can pro-create a free willed being. Why is God so limited in your view?

It's not within my ability to explain to you the difference.

IF all that existed for eternity was God, before he created the angels and then the Universe. I don't see the difficulty with creating a free-willed being out of nothing initially, for God.

Of course you don't. You are unable to understand the difference between the birth of a child to parents and God creating a being ex nihlo. It's all the same thing to you.

Now, if we all existed for eternity as did God, then I don't know, but it seems if God is still in control, the contradiction would remain since he's still the one controlling everything.

You have very succinctly pointed out the need for a living prophet rather then relying on the philosophies of man mingled with scripture.

Edited August 12, 2013 by cdowis

[jwhitlock]

Not according to LDS belief, only the body doesn't exist before (in the sense of being organized in that particular way, its elements have always existed), the intelligence is eternal and God the Father created/organized out of preexisting spiritual elements the spirit that bonded with that as the body bonds with both. The will is likely manifested though all three aspects (separating them is really just theoretical, they operate as one), but the ultimate source is the eternal nature, the intelligence.

Interestingly enough, from an LDS standpoint parents participate in the work of creation on the same principles God does. Parents (with the help of God) simply organize things that already exist into a physical individual. God organized existing matter and intelligence to create our spirits. The practice of parents bringing children into the world is a type and shadow of what God does.

Everything already exists, and it is just organized properly to create a mortal individual.

[cdowis]

The issue is that individual has existed for eternity. The only creation involved is the spirit and physical body. While it may be possible to take it away, free agency has inherently existed for that individual for eternity.

[Stone holm]

The issue is that individual has existed for eternity. The only creation involved is the spirit and physical body. While it may be possible to take it away, free agency has inherently existed for that individual for eternity.

Agreed.

[mfbukowski]

PS. I'm teasing, mfbukowski, and I actually have listened to a couple of them...

Not to much avail I see.

[danielwoods]

Are you saying God was lonely?

Not at all. Rather, the nature of love is a desire to share that love because the joy increases.

[danielwoods]

No. Logical contradictions God is not. Can he violate natural law? Of course. Did he part the Red Sea? Stop the Sun? Heal the sick?

He did not violate natural law. He merely used laws which are unknown to us.

You confine "natural law" to the very narrow understanding of man. Christ changed water to wine using natural laws known to himself.

Right, we disagree on these points of faith.

In the past (In this thread) I've asked why this is, and the answer I've gotten is that it is contradictory. Which doesn't make sense to me. I don't see the contradiction. Anymore than a human couple can pro-create a free willed being. Why is God so limited in your view?

It's not within my ability to explain to you the difference.

IF all that existed for eternity was God, before he created the angels and then the Universe. I don't see the difficulty with creating a free-willed being out of nothing initially, for God.

Of course you don't. You are unable to understand the difference between the birth of a child to parents and God creating a being ex nihlo. It's all the same thing to you.

Now, if we all existed for eternity as did God, then I don't know, but it seems if God is still in control, the contradiction would remain since he's still the one controlling everything.

You have very succinctly pointed out the need for a living prophet rather then relying on the philosophies of man mingled with scripture.

It's interesting you repeat this a lot.

Apparently, the birth of a child is similar to creation for the LDS as well.

[danielwoods]

The issue is that individual has existed for eternity. The only creation involved is the spirit and physical body. While it may be possible to take it away, free agency has inherently existed for that individual for eternity.

Since this is true. Can you answer these two questions of mine below?

If we existed for an eternity, as God did, what makes him greater than us? Who decided that he should be God?

I'd call our will limited to morality, not imperfect. If it's not something designed by God, then who designed it?

[Rivers]

If we existed for an eternity, as God did, what makes him greater than us? Who decided that he should be God?

He was God because he was more intelligent than the rest.

[Rivers]

I find Calvinism very intriguing and this thread has helped me understand it a lot better, but I could never accept it.

[MrG]

I am just referring to this specific comment of yours:

No, I am not a Calvinist. There are many LDS that believe God set the laws himself, not that laws preceded him. Some believe that he set some laws while being coeternal with others.

If God created the laws that are specifically involved in why the Plan of Salvation works to bring man back to God, then would you say that God is subject to the Plan anymore than your interpretation of God has him subject to the laws that he has created?

He is not subject too anything, I am saying that He is perfectly Holy and therefore could never do anything to go against that Holiness. Unlike any of us He can do exactly what He wants to do all of the time.

[MrG]

Uh, Cal is hardly a Calvinist but I see the distinction you are making.

I personally prefer the view that God made the laws and simply decides not to violate them (usually).

Yet really this is a semantic problem because it makes no difference if the laws came before or after, much as the Constitution which was written before my birth (by two or three years I think) does not limit my freedom, but adds to it, and because I accept its principles as my own.

One could argue the 10 commandments, because they came "before" us, on this line of reasoning, therefore limit our freedom

And then we have the problem of what "natural law" is in the first place. It's kind of like "natural bread" and "unnatural bread" or "organic noodles".

If it exists, in one sense or another, it is "natural", and if it is alive, it is "organic".

If God created nature, anything he does is "natural". One can always argue that he uses principles which APPEAR unnatural, or "supernatural" in the same way a cellphone would be "miraculous" in the 14th century.

If God did not create nature, anything that happens is also "natural", so the reality is that these distinctions are all semantic anyway. You can use the same words to argue both sides of the proposition.

You can argue any point by making a distinction in definitions or collapsing a definition by saying "this is really the same because....."

It's all just words!

God loves us, and can do all he needs to do to bring us back to him- that is all that matters.

If God is subject to Laws it is a massive difference to Him actually setting the laws. Its the difference between their being one God and many, and our Heavenly Father having a heavenly Father and so on, its the difference between Mormonism and Christianity.

[MrG]

Are you saying God destroys some of his creations in order to demonstrate mercy to others? Are his creations incapable of seeing the difference without someone having to suffer? It seems God's glory depends on the praise of those he doesn't damn.

I am just saying what the passage appears to be saying.

[MrG]

But you were the one who said "all" applied to all of mankind, but then you said "Adam and Eve" only when asked when we all turned aside.

Were we created in spirit before Adam and Eve fell and when they fell, did we make that same choice to turn aside or did we come into being after the Fall with our sinful natures operational at the time we came into being? If the first, why did we all make that same choice? If the second, how can you then say we "all " turned aside when we were never going down the path of righteousness in the first place? And if we had a pure nature originally, at what time then after creation (does this occur at conception or before) do we acquire that sinful nature and is it a choice that we choose or one that just happens to us due to God's Will?

I am really trying to understand the full Calvinist view and greatly appreciate your willingness to answer questions. I hope that you return in five days and keep trying to help us understand....even those of us certain we get it already.

Apologies is it didnt come across right. I am saying Adam and Eve are the first people to sin (as we know) and because of this ALL humanity was affected from that point on. All of humanity born after that point are sinful by nature (Eph 2:3) as a result of this fall and are therefore enemies of God by nature.

We need God to draw us to Himself as in and of ourselves we would never choose God (Romans 3:10-12) so without this "irresistible grace" all people would be lost.

So therefore no one comes to Christ unless the Father draws Him (John 6:44) and God has mercy on whom He has mercy and hardens whom He hardens (Romans 9)

Responses are going to get very slow now as back to work, talk later

[Stone holm]

Apologies is it didnt come across right. I am saying Adam and Eve are the first people to sin (as we know) and because of this ALL humanity was affected from that point on. All of humanity born after that point are sinful by nature (Eph 2:3) as a result of this fall and are therefore enemies of God by nature.

We need God to draw us to Himself as in and of ourselves we would never choose God (Romans 3:10-12) so without this "irresistible grace" all people would be lost.

So therefore no one comes to Christ unless the Father draws Him (John 6:44) and God has mercy on whom He has mercy and hardens whom He hardens (Romans 9)

Responses are going to get very slow now as back to work, talk later

Yes very interesting concept god is cliquish a concept not acceptable to Mormons except a few conservatives, but acceptable to declining numbers of mainline Calvinist congregations unless they think about it too hard.

[stemelbow]

The origin of the choices I made originate with my will.

Did God know I would choose these choices? yes. Did he force me to choose them? no.

So your will was in existence before you were in existence?

That's an interesting notion, but I would suggest impossible particularly given your premises.

You say God knew your choices before you existed. Thus, your choice was made before you were created--meaning your will pre-existed creation. Indeed, God could have made you to make the opposite choices you've made, given your premises. Given your premises He is the ultimate decider of what choices each of His creations will make. How so? Because only He pre-existed creation. Only He conveived of each choice that each of His creations would make.