It sounds like you're saying you don't believe it would be possible for God to create a universe without sin, given He created beings with free will. Or, to put it another way, you believe that sin is inevitable in a Universe where free will exists. I don't see how it's possible to read your above paragraph in a way that doesn't imply this.

I disagree. I think sin was a fluke. It's something God knew might happen, but the probability was small. God was willing to take the risk of creating beings with free will.



The causation comes from the ontological assumptions, not the epistemological ones. I know this is a bit hard to understand, but this is the more precise way of explaining the issue, which keeps being misunderstood. It's not an issue involving something (the future) being *perceived* as being a certain way, but with something actually being a certain way.

If the future is determined, and in that future Adam and Eve sin, then it's not possible for Adam and Eve not to sin irrespective of God's foreknowledge. The impossibility is not something caused in some physical sense, but in a logical sense. It's not that God's foreknowledge causes something to happen, but that certain assumptions regarding the future which certain beliefs regarding God's foreknowledge make necessary result in certain logical contradictions.

I've not asserted anything resembling this.

The SOP tells us that heaven was imperiled for our redemption, that not only Christ assumed a risk, but *God* did as well.

The logical inconsistency that comes about is in asserting both that God was 100% certain that Christ would not fail, and that He assumed a risk in sending Christ.

Tom,

The above demonstrates the major problem with your reasoning. It is your reliance upon human, finite, logic that is the problem. Can your logic outguess God? Is it infallible?

Job was just as certain in his statements to his friends....but found himself speechless when God addressed him, hence my earlier mention of Job.

These are things where we need not spend much time. Two facts we know from the Bible, and by faith I accept that they are not mutually exclusive:

1) God's foreknowledge is perfect, knowing the end from the beginning.
2) We each have freedom to choose.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

this and the ones following were what i was referring to:

James, your comments remind me of the Lutherans, who believe in predestination, but not double-predestination. When confronted with the argument that their position is illogical they respond, "It may be illogical, but it's Biblical."

If you choose to hold a position that you recognize is illogical, then I think there's not much else to talk about here.



Sigh. Yes, these things are not mutually exclusive. However, the ideas your holding in regards to the nature of the future and the SOP comments regarding risk are mutually exclusive.

Often the Scriptures which present an Open Future are interpreted as anthropomorphisms (i.e., God doesn't mean what He says, but is simply speaking as a man would speak). If one takes the position that Scripture doesn't mean what it says, then, of course, it's impossible to prove something on the basis of Scripture.

I had a book which went through this category by category, but can't find it. Oh well.

Let's consider one of these.



I know I'm in the minority on this question, but I believe that God really did expect Israel to respond positively to Him. In Deut. 28, God lays out blessings and cursings for Israel, based on whether they followed His counsel or not. I believe God foresaw both what would have happened had Israel followed His counsel and what would happen if they didn't, as they actually didn't. I believe both scenarios were possible, and that God really expected that they would follow the better path.

Tom,

Do you take William Craigs position that once God entered into the time/space He created that He is somehow, from now on, confined to it?

I do believe that its possible a universe could be created where the beings choose not to fall. I believe we have some inspiration that says there are worlds out there like that. What Im saying is that if God is going to respect our free will then He would create beings and let the chips fall so to speak. What I think your saying is that because God could have just as easily created a world were no one sinned then He should have even if that doing many do overs until He got one like He wanted. Its like flipping a quarter, heads being no one sins and He got tails the first time so you want Him to keep flipping till He hits heads cause thats easiest for Him and us all around. But if He had flipped tails first then went on till He got heads then thats cheating and He would know that even if all those tail worlds never were actualized yet.

Also I think I understand what was being said about maybe God doesn't follow our logic. It seems that your using logic in a time sense and God isn't bound to our laws of time. Its like saying Christ couldn't have ascended to heaven because its not logical that someone in this world could do that given the laws of gravity. God knew when I was in high school that I would one day marry the girl I was dating. That doesnt mean that was my only option. I was still free to break up with her and marry my second girlfriend. If I had then God would have known that I was going to marry my second girlfriend instead of my first. His knowledge was in no way causative. To say it was would be affirming the consequence. You say its logically impossible for us to do anything but that which God foreknew. But thats still restricting God to our time. I think the burden would be on you to prove that God is stuck in our time.

putting your first sentence aside for the moment i dont think anyone here could disagree with the rest of what you say. (as an aside, you should have given this as an example of what you meant, but hindsight is 20-20.)

i think where we would separate tho, is that God knew which way they would go. deuteronomy also records that israel would want a king, for one.
Deu 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;

As requested, I set my first sentence aside. You said you don't think anyone here could disagree with the rest of what I said, but you did that very thing! I said:



You said:



If God knew which way they could go, then He didn't really believe they would choose the better path.