Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[bluebell]

Right. I would disagree with that aspect of Calvinism if that is in fact what they believe.

I'm going off of the wiki article on the five points of Calvinism, which MrG said was an accurate reflection of the belief system.

In that article, under Human Will, it says-"Total Depravity without free will permanently due to divine sovereignty."

[danielwoods]

Well, what ever it is, even if the scriptures says "he created us out of love" the way you are saying it the only logical conclusion is that he was lonely or he needed something else. Which is partically why I reject your theology. And you can try and tell me all day long that your theology doesn't preach that. That is fine. I am saying for me that he how I see it.

The idea that an infinite being needed something is on the face of it, illogical to me. But to each their own.

[danielwoods]

But here's the difference in what you are pointing out:

They mystery of the origins intelligences is a mystery because it is UNKNOWN and unknowable.

The problem of free will vs ex nihilo, as presented here, is a CONTRADICTION. The problem in this case is apparently a contradiction.

In one case the mystery arises out of a lack of information, in the other case presented, there is a central contradiction in the explanation itself.

Big difference.

Given your assumptions yes.

[mfbukowski]

Given your assumptions yes.

No, actually those were your assumptions.

It's only a contradiction if foreknowledge equals control.

In the end, we have a mystery either way.

LDS: Origin of the design of intelligences (why are they the way they are?) Mystery

Orthodoxy: Origin of Free Will and Evil, in light of Ex Nihilo Mystery

[Vance]

When have I said that God could manipulate their free will if he wanted to?

You have clearly stated that God can do anything he wants.

Can God do anything he wants? Yes.

Can he violate his nature, as in not exist? Not be God? NO.

There, I found it for you.

What I have said repeatedly is that by the very creation (and definition of a moral free will) of a free will, if he controlled it, he wouldn't have created a will that is free.

Your arguments are totally inconsistent. First you claim that God can create a free willed person from nothing (a total contradiction) and then you claim that God can not (even with his omniscience and omnipotence) change a persons free will to eliminate all evil in the world.

Those are totally inconsistent positions.

Thrusting your assumptions onto my theology doesn't make my theology illogical.

Correct. My assumptions have absolutely nothing to do with making your theology illogical. It needs no help from me to do that because it is that way all on its own.

You assume God can't create a free will out of nothing.

Because that is the logical position

I don't.

Which is the illogical position.

You assume that, therefore God must be responsible for evil.

That is the logical conclusion.

I would agree if God wasn't able to create a free willed being out of nothing.

Even if we make that assumption, it still doesn't alleviate God's responsibility for evil. Given that he is omniscient (therefore he knows the evil that will result from his creation AND how to prevent it WITHOUT infringing upon the "free will" of the persons he creates) and omnipotent (therefore he has the power to make the changes necessary to prevent evil WITHOUT infringing upon the "free will" of his creations) , the logical conclusion is that God is responsible for all evil.

[danielwoods]

No, actually those were your assumptions.

False. "It's only a contradiction if foreknowledge equals control."

I don't believe that foreknowledge equal control.

[danielwoods]

You have clearly stated that God can do anything he wants.

There, I found it for you.

Your arguments are totally inconsistent. First you claim that God can create a free willed person from nothing (a total contradiction) and then you claim that God can not (even with his omniscience and omnipotence) change a persons free will to eliminate all evil in the world.

Those are totally inconsistent positions.

Correct. My assumptions have absolutely nothing to do with making your theology illogical. It needs no help from me to do that because it is that way all on its own. Because that is the logical position Which is the illogical position. That is the logical conclusion. Even if we make that assumption, it still doesn't alleviate God's responsibility for evil. Given that he is omniscient (therefore he knows the evil that will result from his creation AND how to prevent it WITHOUT infringing upon the "free will" of the persons he creates) and omnipotent (therefore he has the power to make the changes necessary to prevent evil WITHOUT infringing upon the "free will" of his creations) , the logical conclusion is that God is responsible for all evil.

When a person can't see that they are using their assumptions to tell me my theology is illogical, then there is nothing more I can tell them.

[stemelbow]

I have to disagree that you are following any logic from a traditional Christian perspective. Seems you're changing it based on your own assumptions.

So which of the traditional Christian perspectives are you suggesting are based on my own assumptions:

1. Creation Ex nihilo

2. God is Omniscient

I will add one for further explanation. Tell me if it's not true of the traditional Christian perspective:

3. God is omnipotent

By making the assmption the two points above are true, the logical conclusion is predestination. Each thing you call a choice is really that which was conceived of, therefore originated, by God--He is omniscient therefore He conceived of each minute detail of what each creation would do. Now let's add omnipotent to the mix. If He could create one being who did not kill then He could create them all to not kill, even conceiving of choices for them that would not entail killing. Each being could only do that whcih He concevied of. You say it was their choice, but that is not possible since their choices were made for them before they were in existence. They didn't conceive of the choice. God did.

Cain only killed because God conceived of him doing so before Cain was in existence--the actual action and choice was made for Cain as God conceived of what Cain would do by creating him. At the moments before the kill and the thoughts and actions that lead to the kill it could not have changed from what God conceived of, otherwise it would not have happened as it did. Therefore it wasn't Cain who decided to kill, it was God who conceived of the kill that caused it.

[cdowis]

How does a living prophet differ from what the Bible says here?

Your question suggests:

1. Your interpretation of the Bible is inerrant -- "What the Bible says".

2. The Bible contains the complete teachings of Christ.

1 -- The Bible "says" nothing, it is only a book, not a living creature. It is unable to speak only as we interpret the text. This is why we have so many religions, why we have Protestants and Catholics. They cannot agree on what the Bible "says".

2 -- The Bible is clear that there are teachings which are missing from the Biblical text, e.g. the 40 day ministry of Christ to the apostles.

The living prophet can give us clarification of the text, and give us a greater knowledge of those missing doctrines.

[cdowis]

Daniel,

I do not see your answer on the existence of evil -- lust, hatred, greed, etc.

In the beginning of your concept of the universe, nothing nil nada existed. Thus, there is nothing which exists except that God created it in your view of the ex nihlo creation. So, where did these evil attributes come from? What is the source of this choice between good and evil where free will can be exercised.

Quite frankly, there is clearly no answer because this is a false doctrine -- ex nihlo creation precludes free will.

But give it your best, and let's see what you got.

Edited August 14, 2013 by cdowis

[Questing Beast]

"Ex nihilo" is a bad term. "God" is not nothing, all existence Is God. "Evil" is only a concept to lend sensibility to finite minds that have been created out of "God" and given free will. It is the intention of "God" that all sentient, especially sapient, beings be joyful. In order for them to feel joyful it is necessary for them to feel, or at least comprehend, the opposite of joy, which goes by a number of terms, but misery will suffice. Joy and misery are opposite states of mind. Where the religious sophists and so called oracles of the world have erred, is asserting that "God" has actually created beings that will go for evil over good, misery over Joy, and wind up in "hell". This would indeed be "God's fault, as all of existence Is God. But the entire problem of evil vanishes when we realize and believe in universal Joy as the destiny of the world of humans. Getting to the point where we are actually sensible of what Joy Is, is the entire purpose of this mortal scheme....

[halconero]

Right. I would disagree with that aspect of Calvinism if that is in fact what they believe.

Hey Daniel. I just wanted to say that I appreciate having you here on the board. We disagree theologically on many things but you're generally courteous and also willing to both fight for your own points and even concede them at times. I just want to say thanks.

[MrG]

It does make it hard when Calvinists don't even come to this thread to defend their own beliefs. I mean I know they have made some posts and I will give them the benefit of the doubt that perhaps they are really busy right now.

Yes we are, lots of stuff outside of the net I am afraid but will be back if this is still going in a few days.

[danielwoods]

So which of the traditional Christian perspectives are you suggesting are based on my own assumptions:

1. Creation Ex nihilo

2. God is Omniscient

I will add one for further explanation. Tell me if it's not true of the traditional Christian perspective:

3. God is omnipotent

By making the assmption the two points above are true, the logical conclusion is predestination. Each thing you call a choice is really that which was conceived of, therefore originated, by God--He is omniscient therefore He conceived of each minute detail of what each creation would do. Now let's add omnipotent to the mix. If He could create one being who did not kill then He could create them all to not kill, even conceiving of choices for them that would not entail killing. Each being could only do that whcih He concevied of. You say it was their choice, but that is not possible since their choices were made for them before they were in existence. They didn't conceive of the choice. God did.

Cain only killed because God conceived of him doing so before Cain was in existence--the actual action and choice was made for Cain as God conceived of what Cain would do by creating him. At the moments before the kill and the thoughts and actions that lead to the kill it could not have changed from what God conceived of, otherwise it would not have happened as it did. Therefore it wasn't Cain who decided to kill, it was God who conceived of the kill that caused it.

Your assumption is that God is unable to create out of nothing a free willed being. You impose this assumption on to the traditional orthodox view when it isn't there in the first place.

[danielwoods]

Your question suggests:

1. Your interpretation of the Bible is inerrant -- "What the Bible says".

2. The Bible contains the complete teachings of Christ.

1 -- The Bible "says" nothing, it is only a book, not a living creature. It is unable to speak only as we interpret the text. This is why we have so many religions, why we have Protestants and Catholics. They cannot agree on what the Bible "says".

2 -- The Bible is clear that there are teachings which are missing from the Biblical text, e.g. the 40 day ministry of Christ to the apostles.

The living prophet can give us clarification of the text, and give us a greater knowledge of those missing doctrines.

Ok. What do these living prophets say on this point, that you appear to disagree with? (I'm curious to read what they say)

[stemelbow]

Your assumption is that God is unable to create out of nothing a free willed being. You impose this assumption on to the traditional orthodox view when it isn't there in the first place.

That's no my assumption. That was the conclusion based on logically following the traditional assumptions to their conclusion.

[danielwoods]

Hey Daniel. I just wanted to say that I appreciate having you here on the board. We disagree theologically on many things but you're generally courteous and also willing to both fight for your own points and even concede them at times. I just want to say thanks.

Thank You! And likewise!

[Vance]

When a person can't see that they are using their assumptions to tell me my theology is illogical, then there is nothing more I can tell them.

You claim that God can create a "free willed person" (out of nothing, which is illogical), but then you claim that God can NOT create a "free willed person" that will be 100% obedient. You also claim that God, with omniscience and omnipotence can NOT change a "free willed" person's will (which he created) so that they will not want to do evil and yet still be "free willed". I really can't help it if you are inconsistent.

[Vance]

Your assumption is that God is unable to create out of nothing a free willed being.

Your assumption is that God is unable to create out of nothing (or otherwise) a free willed being that will be 100% obedient.

You impose this assumption on to the traditional orthodox view when it isn't there in the first place.

You impose this assumption on to the traditional orthodox view when it is totally inconsistent with your earlier assumption. Edited August 15, 2013 by Vance

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes we are, lots of stuff outside of the net I am afraid but will be back if this is still going in a few days.

I seem to remember you saying that you were going to be busy for a few days. So that is what I figured was going on. I am quite sure this thread will be going on for a while.

[danielwoods]

That's no my assumption. That was the conclusion based on logically following the traditional assumptions to their conclusion.

Not your assumption? Curious. Then you must disagree with Cal because she stated:

It all goes back to the two assumptions: 1) knowing the future means it is determined and cannot be changed and thus there is no free will and 2) God cannot create a free will individual out of nothing, iow if he is the only source, he is fully responsible.

If it's not your assumption, then how do you know that God can't create a free willed being out of nothing?

Edited August 14, 2013 by danielwoods

[mfbukowski]

False. "It's only a contradiction if foreknowledge equals control."

I don't believe that foreknowledge equal control.

I really don't care anymore honestly, but that was not the issue

In the end, we have a mystery either way.

LDS: Origin of the design of intelligences (why are they the way they are?) Mystery

Orthodoxy: Origin of Free Will and Evil, in light of Ex Nihilo Mystery

The point was your statement that both ways we had a mystery, and now you are saying we don't have a mystery because you don't believe that "foreknowledge equals control"

Honestly this is quite a mess now. How did we get from "foreknowledge" to "ex nihilo" anyway? Now you seem to be saying that foreknowledge and "control" must have something to do with ex nihilo, or your objection would not have included those terms. There are so many equivocations on imprecise terms here that my head just swims.

Just let it go, I guess. It would take hours to unravel.

It's still pretty hard to disagree with the idea that if God "caused" the universe, he must have "caused" evil as well.

Edited August 15, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

It's still pretty hard to disagree with the idea that if God "caused" the universe, he must have "caused" evil as well.

Actually I don't have a problem with this either way. Evil was part of the plan so if you want to, I think one could say that "God caused evil"

Or if you want to, you could say that God did NOT "cause" evil because only choices are "evil" and God did not create "choice"

There are so many ways to resolve all this that I can't count them.

But somehow we will fight to the death about a few words. Very weird.

[danielwoods]

I really don't care anymore honestly, but that was not the issue

The point was your statement that both ways we had a mystery, and now you are saying we don't have a mystery because you don't believe that "foreknowledge equals control"

Honestly this is quite a mess now. How did we get from "foreknowledge" to "ex nihilo" anyway? Now you seem to be saying that foreknowledge and "control" must have something to do with ex nihilo, or your objection would not have included those terms. There are so many equivocations on imprecise terms here that my head just swims.

Just let it go, I guess. It would take hours to unravel.

It's still pretty hard to disagree with the idea that if God "caused" the universe, he must have "caused" evil as well.

Unless he created the potential for evil by creating free willed beings, that decided to choose evil.

[Calm]

Yes we are, lots of stuff outside of the net I am afraid but will be back if this is still going in a few days.

Take your time, it is rare enough when we get a strong (in terms of theology, I think that is the correct term for someone who believes in all five points, etc) Calvinist on the board that we get rather excited, it will give us a chance to practice our patience as long as you are willing to come back. Edited August 15, 2013 by calmoriah