bkmitchell — 2017-10-01T02:37:56-04:00 — #1
Isn't human suffering proof that a just, all-powerful God must not exist? On the contrary, says Boston College Professor of Philosophy Peter Kreeft. How can "suffering" exist without an objective standard against which to judge it? Absent a standard, there is no justice. If there is no justice, there is no injustice. And if there is no injustice, there is no suffering. On the other hand, if justice exists, God exists. In five minutes, learn more
dave_l — 2017-10-01T04:41:55-04:00 — #2
The commentator says; "free will explains how God could be good and allow moral evil". But according to the bible, God would not be good if he did not punish the moral evil he created.
bkmitchell — 2017-10-01T05:45:36-04:00 — #3
I wasn't aware the "moral evil" appeared in a Bible translation? Which and verse would that be?
And, another question:
Would God be good/just for causing/making/forcing people to sin and then punishing them even though they lacked free will and only did what he programmed them to do?
dave_l — 2017-10-01T05:51:08-04:00 — #4
Do you think sin by choice is not moral evil?
God doesn't force anyone to sin. People want to sin, in fact they love sin. He judged all guilty in Adam and visits that resulting sinfulness by sending the reasons they want to sin even more. So they have not only Adam's sin but their own sins to answer for.
bkmitchell — 2017-10-01T06:06:49-04:00 — #5
I think the term 'moral evil' does not appear in the Bible. And I do not believe the Bible makes a difference between concepts like 'moral evil', 'natural evil', unethical and so on.
Then that implies that People must have some freedom to choose unless of course they don't and God programmed them to do evil.
Where in the Bible does it say that people are judged guilty in Adam? I have searched for that phrase but to no avail, it simply does not show up.
dave_l — 2017-10-01T06:16:07-04:00 — #6
People respond to the reasons they make their choices. And this according to their nature. God produces their nature and the reasons they choose.
It is a concept or conclusion stemming for being made sinners in Adam. Guilt = liability for punishment. And all are punished for Adam's sin.
bkmitchell — 2017-10-01T06:46:46-04:00 — #7
Which as written above implies that people can choose from the alternatives that God has presented them with.
One may also argue that people can choose to fight their natures. One, who habitually eats too much or smokes too much can overcome and fight their urges and develop new habits(nature).
Thanks for admitting and clearly stating your theological assumptions.
dave_l — 2017-10-01T06:58:59-04:00 — #8
There are no alternatives. People always choose according to the reason they made their choice.
No, because it is their nature and other external reasons they choose to quit smoking.
You are saying my interpretation cannot be found as a direct quote in scripture. But that is why we compare scripture with scripture to determine a true conclusion or doctrine.
If you realize there are only three versions of sin and grace, and you rule two of them out as false. It will affect your interpretation of obscure passages. Translators make this call many times in word choices. So I always come down on the side of grace Vs works (free will) when making a call.
bkmitchell — 2017-10-01T07:10:52-04:00 — #9
Okay, then I am confused I do not understand what you are trying to say.
I agree with this
Three versions? that's very interesting what are the three versions of "sin and grace"? Ah, maybe it would be better to start a new thread on that issue.
dave_l — 2017-10-01T07:18:49-04:00 — #10
If you select a marble from a box of marbles, you assume you have many options. But you picked the one for various reasons. Even if you looked the other way and arbitrarily picked one, you had a reason for doing this. The lot is cast into the lap but God determines how it falls and the choices people make based on how it falls.
It is an interesting study. The three options are; Salvation by grace alone (no free will). Salvation by grace and works combined (free will). And salvation by works alone (free will).
tyrone_howard — 2017-10-01T07:25:01-04:00 — #11
Jesus learned obedience through the things he suffered. If perfection was justified in suffering, is not imperfection also justified in suffering.
bkmitchell — 2017-10-01T09:16:16-04:00 — #12
If, God determines the choices people make this theory sounds a lot like Fatalism/Predeterminism.
I am not sure how Salvation by grace alone implies that free will can not exist?
dave_l — 2017-10-01T09:38:03-04:00 — #13
“A man’s heart devises his way, but the LORD directs his steps [choices].” (Proverbs 16:9)
Salvation by grace vs works (free-will) illustration. “Listen! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in and dine with him, and he with Me.” (Revelation 3:20)
Jesus spoke this to believers in the church at Laodicea. But free will evangelists use it all the time saying anyone can open the door and let Jesus in. This would be a works/grace scheme. Christ is there knocking but you must do your part and let him in.
But the grace alone understanding of the passage is that it applies only to believers who have become lukewarm. But if we were to adapt it to unbelievers, it might go something like this;
Jesus is knocking. But the guy inside is dead and cannot hear much less respond. So Jesus kicks the door in, grabs the guy and raises him from the dead (new birth).
So the moral of the story is; the free will evangelists offer a false Christ the flesh can hear knocking. Because spiritually dead people cannot hear the true Christ knocking unless first brought to life in the new birth.
bkmitchell — 2017-10-01T16:44:09-04:00 — #14
That's a curious translation as the word 'choices' does not appear in the Masoretic text and there is not even a hint in that verse that choosing between alternative options is what is at stake here. So, I take the above translation as being your interpretation or how you read and understand the text. And, while I respect your right to your interpretation I also respect and recognize that there are other ways of understanding and reading the text:
How He can be sovereign over our paths without eliminating our free will is a mystery this proverb does not explain. It merely asserts both truths with no attempt to reconcile them. Let us do what we should do: “plan the way we want to live” (THE MESSAGE), recognizing God’s power to direct our steps. If our way is “rolled onto Him” (see 16:3), God can direct our plans toward success.
Lennox, Stephen J. Proverbs: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition. Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing House, 1998. Print.
16:9 While the book of Pr clearly shows the importance of human responsibility and choice, this proverb recognizes that outcomes are determined by God’s sovereign providence. Proverbs makes no attempt to resolve the tension between the two ideas. Both human responsibility and God’s sovereignty are affirmed, and the mystery of their interaction is allowed to remain.
Cabal, Ted et al. The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007. Print.
Whatever a man’s plans, it is God who determines the outcome. See v. 1.
Berlin, Adele, Marc Zvi Brettler, and Michael Fishbane, eds. The Jewish Study Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.
9 This verse is usually associated with vv 1–3, especially v 1, in virtue of the catch words “heart” and “man” (אד֨), and similarity of thought. But the point is not exactly the same. This saying distinguishes between the human plan and the divine direction; it has a whole process in mind: the way through life. The journey involves many decisions, but there is consolation in the belief that the Lord’s direction will bring success along the way. This interpretation is not negated by translating “and” in v 9b as “but.” It presupposes harmony between human decisions and the guidance of God toward ultimate success. However, this is not always so. Sayings like 19:21 and 20:24 are warnings that one must be open to the uncertainties along the way. The final result is the Lord’s doing, over which humans have no real control, and it may not be the “success” that is yearned for. The poignant confession of Jer 10:23 is appropriate here: “I know, O Lord, that man’s road is not his [to choose], that man, as he walks, cannot direct his own steps.” Human helplessness before God!
Murphy, Rowland E. Proverbs. Vol. 22. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998. Print. Word Biblical Commentary.
bkmitchell — 2017-10-01T16:46:46-04:00 — #15
This is a great point. The Gideon bible and some tv evangelist I believe misappropriate this verse and apply it to unbelievers ignoring the textual context.
dave_l — 2017-10-02T06:46:01-04:00 — #16
“O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his steps.” (Jeremiah 10:23)
bkmitchell — 2017-10-02T09:19:56-04:00 — #17
I am not sure how the quoting a translation of Jeremiah 10:23 resolves the translation issue I mentioned about Proverbs 16:9? Neither the translation of Jeremiah 10:23 nor that of Proverbs 16:9 uses the term "choices/Choice" and neither seems to imply a hard-deterministic theory nor for that matter fatalism when read in context. But, perhaps it is better to for us to actually set aside a new thread in which to read through Jeremiah 10:23 (and its context) in community, and another for Proverbs 16:9 (and it's context) as well as other verses?
dave_l — 2017-10-02T11:36:17-04:00 — #18
“The preparations of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.” (Proverbs 16:1)
Perhaps if you put all of these verses together you will have a better understanding.
bkmitchell — 2017-10-02T16:41:36-04:00 — #19
It is clear that Proverbs 16:1 and 16:9 belong in the same Pericope, but Jeremiah 10:23 certainly does not.
Careful philology is one of the tools that I believe is needed to avoid Eisegesis and to arrive at a better understanding of texts from antiquity far removed from us by time, place, as well as culture.
dave_l — 2017-10-02T20:28:27-04:00 — #20
You can speculate forever and not arrive at the truth. Or you can simply trust Paul when he says; “In Him also we have received an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His own will,” (Ephesians 1:11)
All things = everything
next page →