“God [said] he’d made a mistake just before the flood, didn’t he? From what you're saying he never made a wrong move, so he knew from the beginning of time that he would wipe almost everyone out in a flood.”Where does the atheist get this from? He is referring to Genesis 6:6 in the Bible. The atheist doesn’t believe the Bible is true and makes the case that if we find contradictions in the Bible, like God is perfect and yet God makes mistakes, that proves that the Bible is unreliable. That is fine, but let me be very clear that both the atheist and I are BOTH starting with the words of the Bible as our reference point. It is only fair then to examine other parts of the Bible for comparison as the atheist himself is doing. This is not circular. While I will make a case that God did not make a mistake, I am not trying to prove God or His attributes from scripture. Instead I will be looking carefully at the Bible, the very text that the atheist is pointing to, to show that it is not the case that God made a mistake.
First, let’s look at Genesis 6:5-8 which reads,
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them." But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.These passages describe God being sorry that he had made man, grieved in His heart and He then acts to remove all of mankind but Noah and his family.
The equation 2+2=5 is a mistake because the correct answer is 4. We have to ask what would be the correct decision. Is it the atheists’ position that humans should not exist? Does the atheist believe that humans should not have the free will to choose wrong? I don’t think so. It would seem then that the atheist position is that God THINKS that He has made a mistake. There is no indication that God believes that He has made a mistake. We are only shown God’s present displeasure at the sinfulness of man. The language is not even strong enough to indicate that if God could start over, He would do it differently.
Students of theology will recognize the anthropomorphic (from the Greek, anthropos, "human" and morphe, "shape" or "form")and anthropopathic (anthropos, "human" and pathos, "suffering") descriptions of God. This is when human physical features and emotions are attributed to God. While the atheist may not ascribe to the perspective, he cannot ignore the Judeo-Christian position that God is uniquely different than man but communicates in this analogous way. The above passage mentions God’s heart and eyes as a way of expressing God’s nature through our experience of His creation. Such is the case for the words “sorry” and “grieved.” Even if someone was sorry and grieved at their decision does not mean that they made the wrong decision. Everyone can think of a situation where we could make the correct decision and still express grief or sorry at the temporary or even permanent outcome.
What we are seeing is God’s reaction to His perfect creation marred by sin. Imagine that you paint a beautiful picture. You allow it to be displayed in an art gallery. The painting then is vandalized. You would be sad and may regret the decision to put it in the museum, but it would not be a mistake, especially if your purpose was to share it with as many as possible. Even if you knew that it would eventually be vandalized, your purpose would still be fulfilled.
So, did God “[know] from the beginning of time that he would wipe almost everyone out in a flood”? Yes. Sometimes radical surgery is necessary to save the life of a patient. Civilization had become infected with the cancer of moral depravity and in danger of destroying Noah and his family. We see God surgically remove Sodom, the Bejamites of Gibeah, Jericho, Makkedah, Lachish, Eglon, Debir, the cities of Negev and Shephalah, Hazor, Madon, Shimron and Achshaph to prepare the way for the Messiah. In every case God gives clear warning and the opportunity to repent and turn to Him, ensuring their protection and ultimately our salvation through the Messiah, the Savior, Jesus Christ.
Posts
17 comments:
If you say that your god knew from the beginning that he'd have to wipe out mankind with a flood, then he knew Adam would sin, then he knew that putting the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden would lead Adam to sin....
So he knew he'd make a mistake before he made it. If a so called perfect being knows it's going to make a mistake, surely that indicates that the being isn't perfect?
Alex B. - Putting the Tree of Knowledge in the garden did not lead Adam to sin. Adam and Eve could have defied God in other ways.
I know that allowing my 16 year old to drive, they will inevitably have an accident. Is it a mistake to let my child drive? No.
Adam's sin isn't God's mistake. Sin is the rejection of God. The only way to prevent this is not to create man or create man with no free will. God knowingly decides that in the end it is worth it.
Sin isn't "GAME OVER" for God's plans.
"I know that allowing my 16 year old to drive, they will inevitably have an accident. Is it a mistake to let my child drive? No."
Of course it is! By your own account the underage driver will have a crash!
Face it, your god led Adam and Eve into sin by tempting them. It's as simple as that!
Tim, answer these questions-
Did your god create Adam?
Did Adam sin?
Is your god perfect and incapable of making a mistake?
Could your god have made a creation with free will that wouldn't sin?
If your god could have made a version of Adam that was without sin, but still had free will, very much like you claim Jesus to be, why didnt he? Jesus is often positioned as the 'new Adam', if the first Adam was created perfectly why wasn't he like Jesus? Did your god make a mistake in the initial design?
Alex B. - Did your god create Adam? Yes.
Did Adam sin? Yes.
Is your god perfect and incapable of making a mistake? Yes.
Could your god have made a creation with free will that wouldn't sin? No.
What you are describing is a square circle. It doesn't exist. It would be unfree-free-will. Free will includes the freedom to sin. What you are describing is the opposite of freedom to sin.
I'm a little surprised that a theology student and former Christian would use Jesus for your example. Surely you know the implications.
Jesus had free will and chose not to sin. Jesus is God incarnate and only God is sinless. That is the underlying principle of the gospel, that we are sinners and that only God lived a perfect life. We are guilty and if we trust in His perfect work, then He mercifully and unneccessarily takes our place and gives us His reward. That is the initial design.
Tim, I don't know if you read what you'd written -
"Could your god have made a creation with free will that wouldn't sin? No."
followed by -
"Jesus had free will and chose not to sin"
So, is Jesus this 'square circle' of yours? For the sacrifice of Jesus to have any meaning at all he had to be human, to be subject to the same pressures and temptations as we are. If you're saying he wasn't, then his sacrifice was nothing more than an empty gesture made by a being that knew it wouldn't die.
As for god being unable to make a creation that included free will but didn't allow for sin, are you saying your god isn't powerful enough to create an environment where temptation doesn't exist? I'm pretty sure I could put together a space where a child wasn't tempted to do anything wrong, am I more powerful than your god?
"As for god being unable to make a creation that included free will but didn't allow for sin, are you saying your god isn't powerful enough to create an environment where temptation doesn't exist?"
Are you redefining God and creating a problem for Tim to defend, putting words in his mouth and all?
"I'm pretty sure I could put together a space where a child wasn't tempted to do anything wrong..."
Quite a claim. OK, do it, and send pictures.
Alex B. - maybe we are talking past each other a bit... with respect to wouldn't and couldn't. When you say that something has free will and wouldn't sin, to me that sounds like wouldn't in the sense that even if it wanted to, it wouldn't, therefore couldn't. So my response was that we are free will creatures that could sin (and would sin) but that Jesus could sin but didn't sin. I hope that clarifies what I heard and was trying to say.
The Christian position regarding Jesus' nature from the scriptures is that Jesus was fully God and fully man. Unlike any other person to live on the earth, he had a dual nature. His human/God nature allowed Him as you said to be subject to the same pressures and temptations as we are but not sin. His sacrifice was real and for all mankind. He really died and was able to raise Himself up again.
As far as putting together a non-temptable space you would also need to invade the mind. Adam sinned not when he ate the apple, but when he decided in his mind to defy God and to do what he wanted above what God wanted.
In your example, you would have to control your subjects mind in a way that made them unable to choose wrong. The problem is that then they would have no free will.
Take away free will and you take away the ability to REALLY choose to love. So I think that environment is a very small part of the solution.
"Adam sinned not when he ate the apple, but when he decided in his mind to defy God and to do what he wanted above what God wanted. "
Actually, Adam wasn't even aware that he'd sinned until after he'd done it, as he lacked the knowledge of good and evil before then.
Lucky none of it happened eh? Cos this is so much illogical nonsense that even my 13 and 14 year old sons can see through it.
I've humoured you long enough, tell me how your god can be simultaneously all powerful and all knowing, considering that to be one prevents you from being the other.
Stormbringer, I put no words in Tim's mouth, I just quoted his direct contradiction back at him.
There is a difference between a quote and a restatement containing interpretation.
Stormbringer, Tim stated his god couldn't do something (so much for all powerful!), then gave an example of him doing it! A straight contradiction!
Though given christian's attitudes to biblical contradictions he'll probably claim it was a copyists error!
I think all that has been shown is that you are using a definition of all powerful that meets your argument, and not what was actually meant.
Can you say straw man?
oh, is there another meaning of 'all powerful', one that doesn't mean 'all powerful'?
Please explain this to me, oh wise Trent! Please show this ignorant former christian where he's going wrong! Please show me how 'all powerful' doesn't actually mean 'all powerful'!
Adam may not have understood good and evil but it does not say he did not understand right and wrong. There is a difference.
If Jesus chose to be sinless that was His free will in action. He knows what sin is but chooses not to sin. We have the same free will but we all commit sin.
God did not lead Adam to sin. Where does it say that??? How can God lead Adam to sin when He said don't do a particular thing then we do it. It was simply a matter of Eve being lied to and believing the lie. Then Adam goes against God, using his free will, and does what God said not to do. That is free will.
Rob, Adam and Eve didn't exist
I've been accused of not answering questions, so here are the ones I apparently missed in this thread -
"Can you say straw man?"
Yes.
"God did not lead Adam to sin. Where does it say that???"
By showing Adam where the tree was, by putting it there in the first place.
Post a Comment