Uncle Davey wrote:
> 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.
Without the varnish, are you saying that we do not have free will, but
from our perspective, it looks like we do?
|
| 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 |
|