Uzytkownik "Grinder" <grinder@no.spam.maam.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:8ph4f.441707$_o.160834@attbi_s71...
> Allow me to break this conundrum down to its simplest form:
>
> Premises:
>
> 1) Man has free will.
>
> 2) God is omniscient.
>
> For a given decision, with two choices, A and B:
>
> 3) God, being omniscient, knows the man will choose B.
>
> 4) Man, has two choices:
>
> a) He freely chooses A, and shows God to be wrong,
> or *not* omniscient.
>
> b) He freely chooses B, as God knew he would all
> along.
>
> So here we are. There is *only one choice*, 4b, that
> can be made without violating Premise #2. If, however,
> man is not free to make either choice, that violoates
> Premise #1.
>
> Where is the flaw in this logic, or what is the means
> by which you can circumvent it?
The flaw is that it overlooks the fact of different perspectives.
Man's perspective is to use his free will. We are called on to exercise
free-will. Our will is in strong bondage to the flesh as regards sins and
our ability to break from them, but we have a fairly liberated facility to
believe. One of the side effects of this is that humans are prone to become
addicted to almost anything and are also capable of believing almost
anything. But there is a gospel reason behind the way we are wired.
That God is disposing what happens and has history written from start to
finish is not relevant in many ways to the decisions we make, other than to
humble us and also to comfort is if things appear not to be working out
right. In fact, they cannot, in one sense, be working out not right.
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 |
|