mitchellmckain said:
Well yes the problem of evil is somewhat central to the whole issue of free will versus absolute foreknowledge. When God created life, He created the possibility of evil. Every parent does the same thing. Their will to love their child justifies what they do. But Genesis chapter 6 is entirely at odds with the idea that God created man with the knowledge that man would be utterly depraved and evil. Furthermore I am absolutely opposed to the even the possibility that evil is necessary for good. Yes God can turn the evil actions of men toward a greater good. That is the power of God. But it is insane to think that the good of God depends on such evil actions of men. God does good in spite of the evil of men NOT because that evil empowers God in any way!
Nor am I claiming that evil is necessary to empower God. God simply brings good out of things that men(and Satan) have meant for evil. My position is that part of perfection is the rejection of evil. It just so happens that God gave Adam a rule in the garden before Adam acquired the knowledge of good and evil.
Why didn't God place the tree outside of the garden?
Romans 4:15
because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
And why did God institute the rule of not eating of the tree which was there?
Romans 7:11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
Which produced this result in Mankind:
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.
And sin came into the world through Adam and was made impotent through the actions of Jesus Christ who was perfected before the dawn of creation.
Romans 5:12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Granted that God will allow certain people to continue in their sin as part of a greater plan (such as pharoah and Judas). But the choices which led to their predictable patterns of behavior were theirs. I will however deny that God planned their choices and behavior from before they were born, or that God would EVER need someone to do evil as part of a plan for greater good. The situational (consequetialist) ethics that the ends justify the means which such a belief supports is intolerable.
Perhaps intolerable, but my claim is not that God planned their choices, just that He knew their choices; and provided to them, for those choices, through our Lord Jesus Christ.
I was making precisely the same objection against Jim Hilston's post. So if Patrick was making such idolatrous accusations against you then throwing John Hilston's post back at him was in some sense just. I have used this kind of reflection tactic against people myself but I have tried to make it absolutely clear that that is what I am doing, for I do not think that one should emulate the bad behavior of others.
I, too, would never had made such accusations against Patrick as Hilston did. That's why I made it clear they were his words and not mine. The God which open theist's seek is the same God which I seek.
So no, I do not agree with Patricks formulation of the arguement. I would say that absolute foreknowledge leads both Patrick and I to the inescapable conclusion that God is responsible for evil and since we cannot believe in such a God, we cannot believe in absolute foreknowledge. But in your case you do not see the same connection. We worship the same all powerful, all knowing, transcendant God, but our puny understandings of this God cause us to squabble like dogs over a tiny scrap of meat.
In our search for truth we often trip over the molehills. We see the others position as wrong because it author's evil or it leaves God's will subject to our own. The truth probably lies between these. Augustine's solution was that God maintains his plans, while changing His methods. Your solution, which I find valid for the most part, is that God chooses not to know.
Thanks for the reply,
Rob
