Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: A riddle that was set me...
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:58:49 +0200
Organization: www.usenetposts.com
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <dj16vh$dao$0@pita.alt.net>
References: <dirgbm$qgf$0@pita.alt.net> <0tc4f.249987$084.245527@attbi_s22> <mvq2l153hhuegflas0f6vqs8f0kaor3trb@4ax.com> <8ph4f.441707$_o.160834@attbi_s71> <ditnlh$s7g$0@pita.alt.net> <V9x4f.439404$x96.79222@attbi_s72>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:4136
Uzytkownik "Grinder" <grinder@no.spam.maam.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:V9x4f.439404$x96.79222@attbi_s72...
> Uncle Davey wrote:
> > Uzytkownik "Grinder" <grinder@no.spam.maam.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> > news:8ph4f.441707$_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?
Aye. And we can only work on that basis, that we have it. The fact that we
don't you can almost treat as academic. You need to believe the gospel
anyway. You are able to choose to believe it, and you will waste your
eternity if you do not.
Free will is not really a biblical idea, only a sentimental one, but don't
let that stop you coming.
If there were free will, then how could God harden Pharaoh's heart? Does
that mean free will for every one but Pharaoh? For everyone but Saul? For
everyone but Judas?
Yet these people are nonetheless culpable. They should have believed on the
Saviour.
And the only logic you will find there is the absolute and uncompromising
sovereignty of God, and His decision about how men miught be saved.
Uncle Davey
www.usenetposts.com
|
| 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 |
|