iano writes:
Jaderis writes:
So, God so loves his children that he will harden their hearts against him so that they may continue sinning? He is under no obligation to restrain anyone from sin? Except because he loves them, maybe?
The relationship between God and a person in Adam is not father/child. One becomes a child by adoption on being placed in Christ, being born again, being declared righteous, becoming a Christian, being saved...etc.
That's a minor quibble. The point being that God supposedly loves all of us and wants us not to sin, right? Why then would God purposely harden someone's heart so that they may continue sinning if it repulses him so? It may (possibly) work for some, but not all. Why would an omnipotent god, knowing full well that this hardening of the heart trick won't work on some of those he does it to, do such a thing? Does he want these people to fail?
Certainly, if sin is used as a means to save a person then restraining a person from sinning is not a loving thing to do.
Yes, but, certainly, using sin as a means to save a person that cannot be saved by such a tactic is evidence of either ineptitude or malevolence or both on the part of God, no?
What is being argued is that way we sin is by God removing or limiting his restraint on us - pure evil being our natural tendency once restraint is removed. It's God "handing us over to sin", God "hardening our hearts", God "creating evil".
So, we are naturally in a state of restraint? What happened to free will? Why is God restraining us? I thought that we were supposed to be able to choose? If God is restraining some and not others (those whom you say are in a "headlong rush towards depravity") and therefore interfering with the free will of those who are not so insistently depraved, then why doesn't he just restrain us all?
iano writes:
Jaderis writes:
Why use methods which he knows will not work (being omnipotent and all)? And which were explicitly used as punishment and not for ultimate redemption?
I don't get how his methods didn't work. It depends upon what God was trying to achieve. Certainly Pharaoh serves as a picture of Gods patience and God's patience having limits. That a man is permitted to fall into sin as a result of the wrath of God doesn't mean the love of God cannot utilise this in the attempt to save a man.
Why should God's patience have limits if we wants us all to be redeemed? God should know what methods would work to open someone's eyes and persuade them to stop sinning. If allowing a man to fall to the bottom of the sin pit won't save him, then why even try it? Why should there even be an "attempt" to save a man? It should be done in whatever way possible if it is so damn important!
Some say (maybe you, I don't know) that God showing himself would interfere with free will, but all the "born-again" Christians can surely say that God "showed" Himself to them, no? Only, it happened in a way that they could/would recognize. How is that not interfering in their free will? How is the Holy Spirit "filling them up" or God/Jesus/Mary/St. Whoever coming to them in a vision not interfering with their free will? Obviously, there are many people who can't or won't see Him that way. So why can't God come to them in a way that they may recognize Him just like He came to all the born-agains or other Christians?
iano writes:
Jaderis writes:
Wouldn't an omnipotent God know how to turn someone away from sin individually instead of the "one size fits all" method prescribed in the Bible? I mean, if he really loved them and all.
I don't understand what you're getting at. God deals with everyone individually and is restraining this one from sin at the same time as he lets another sink into the pit of depravity. And vice versa the next day in a different area of their lives.
So, in your opinion, God is interfering in the free will of men everyday of our lives? Why not then actually save us all? Even without severe imposition on free will, there must be a way for all of us to come to Him freely on an individual level, no?
God is not obliged to give anyone anything. Everyone has a conscience and their suppression of what that says they ought to do and not do is sufficient to condemn them on the spot.
So what was the point of the giving of the Ten Commandments and all of the other laws, if everyone knew what to do anyway? How come not all "sins" are recognized as such in all cultures, if conscience dictates it?
I agree that not everyone follows their conscience, but on the other hand, not everyone's conscience is the same.
Everything else is a bonus. Besides, we all die and there is nothing to suggest that his removing folk from the game renders them eternally lost. People have been saved by the gospel long before the world heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
And those people are? And how were they saved?
Sufficient to do something dramatic to attempt to save us from our sin. But not in the sentimental way you seem to be suggesting though.
Again, why the "attempt?" Why not just do it? So many Christians say that they came to God of their own free will after some experience or another, so why can God not give everyone a "dramatic" experience that will bring them to Him? One size does not fit all and judging from the stories I hear from people who were born again, they have some wildly varying experiences. So, what's the deal? Why "attempt" something dramatic when you can just "do?"
"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -
The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
™ Version 4.2