Soteriological Reductio Ad Absurdum

Originally posted by divegeester
I did misunderstand, thanks for pointing it out.

Not a problem. I also have to add that given the standard definitions of omnipotence and omniscience, they are mutually exclusive so the question of what a being holding both properties can or cannot do is mute
When talking of an omniscient being in any meaningful way one has to at a minimum invent a second timeline in which said being makes decisions. The problem is that people then tend to confuse the two timelines resulting in serious logical errors.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
In other words He does not cause every thing that happens, nor can he always stop things that happen, without over stepping his own will.

In other words he has priorities and 1. is not a primary priority.
So what are his other priorities and why do they take precedence?

Originally posted by twhitehead
In other words he has priorities and 1. is not a primary priority.
So what are his other priorities and why do they take precedence?

In reply to your question, I don't know. Who can understand the deep things of God?
What I do know is that traditional answers for why bad things happen to good people do not make sense.

Originally posted by vivify
God hardened Pharaoh's heart as an excuse to rain down plagues on Egypt, which included first-born sons being killed. What "love" did God display in manipulating Pharaoh's will like that?

Look how it happen, there are things in all of our lives that change us. We can go through
the same things and both come out differently. What should have showed Pharaoh what
he was up against and turned him toward the truth instead harden his heart. It is no
different in Jesus day, Jesus raised someone from the dead and what did they do? They
plotted to kill both Jesus and Lazarus. The manipulation *my opinion* will simply show us
what we are, just like finding a wallet, and honest person turns it in, intact...a dishonest
one will not.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Look how it happen, there are things in all of our lives that change us. We can go through
the same things and both come out differently. What should have showed Pharaoh what
he was up against and turned him toward the truth instead harden his heart. It is no
different in Jesus day, Jesus raised someone from the dead and what did they do? They
plotted t ...[text shortened]... , just like finding a wallet, and honest person turns it in, intact...a dishonest
one will not.

No; Pharaoh didn't harden his heart, God hardened Pharoah's heart. The Bible is very clear on that.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I came across a very interesting article that would seem fit for this thread. It has quotes from "When Bad Things Happen To Good People, by Rabbi Harold Kushner"

In my opinion, I don't believe God is in control of everything that happens. In other words He does not cause every thing that happens, nor can he always stop things that happen, without ove ...[text shortened]... stepping his own will.

http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/the-problem-with-blaming-god

Thanks. I like Kushner. His argument, though, generally applies to the problem of evil—both moral, and especially, natural evil. To extend the argument to soteriology, of course, means adopting the Arminian position—with forces powerful enough to defeat God’s intended “endgame”, so to speak. At least that position preserves God’s nature as agape, and the attribute of justness.

Originally posted by vivify
No; Pharaoh didn't harden his heart, God hardened Pharoah's heart. The Bible is very clear on that.

I told you about the process where God did do it, someone else with the same presentation
would have turned to God instead of fight God.

Originally posted by FMF
The revelation of the God figure and the "offer" would have to be unequivocal, indisputable, and convincing to all humans for your 1. 2. and 3. to be valid, in my view.

I’m not sure what the word “valid” means in this context. "Credible" is maybe a better word. For some people, the offer is credible, for others it isn’t.

Originally posted by vistesd
Thanks. I like Kushner. His argument, though, generally applies to the problem of evil—both moral, and especially, natural evil. To extend the argument to soteriology, of course, means adopting the Arminian position—with forces powerful enough to defeat God’s intended “endgame”, so to speak. At least that position preserves God’s nature as agape, and the attribute of justness.

Hello Vistesd, I have always chosen a balance between Arminian and Calvanism.
Even Arminians don't all agree with the original tenet's. Some believe salvation can be lost and some believe it cannot. I am of the latter.
I also agree with divegeester on total annihilation.
I know the bible says God knows the end from the beginning, but does it mean he plans it all out, or simply knows each scenario leading to the end?
I tend to side with the notion that he is like a grand master chess player, 1000 moves ahead of Satan who comes to kill, steal and destroy.
I also am cautious when man gives God all these titles, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience...🙂

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Hello Vistesd, I have always chosen a balance between Arminian and Calvanism.
Even Arminians don't all agree with the original tenet's. Some believe salvation can be lost and some believe it cannot. I am of the latter.
I also agree with divegeester on total annihilation.
I know the bible says God knows the end from the beginning, but does it mean he ...[text shortened]... m cautious when man gives God all these titles, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience...🙂

Hi , CB. I think annihilationism is far more defensible (both Biblically and in ethical terms) than forever-lasting punishment—and at some point we’ll have to get into the meaning of words like aionion. And it is far more amenable under the Arminianist view than a Calvinist one—and I am using both of those categories only insofar as they are applicable to this question; I do not mean to imply that one must be a wholesale Arminianist or Augustinian/Calvinist.

But it still either (a) denies any kind of (i) model reformative/restorative justice, or (ii) a healing/well-being model of salvation—which, as I have noted, is the underlying meaning of soterias; or (b) limits God’s actions toward such justice/healing/well-making to this span of human life. I am still engaged in my research, but I am becoming more convinced that a model of eventual universal reconciliation, and hence salvation, makes the most sense—again Biblically as well as ethically—though I do not deny the evidence for other possibilities.

In the end, disagreements over hermeneutics and exegesis likely result in impasse across the board—but I am preparing to at least make the case.

Originally posted by vivify
No; Pharaoh didn't harden his heart, God hardened Pharoah's heart. The Bible is very clear on that.

Pharaoh had previously killed the first born of Israel of his own free will. Pharaoh was then led down a trail to be judged accordingly as the final plague took the first born of Egypt.

At least, that's how I see it.

Originally posted by vistesd
Hi , CB. I think annihilationism is far more defensible (both Biblically and in ethical terms) than forever-lasting punishment—and at some point we’ll have to get into the meaning of words like aionion. And it is far more amenable under the Arminianist view than a Calvinist one—and I am using both of those categories only insofar as they are applica ...[text shortened]... exegesis likely result in impasse across the board—but I am preparing to at least make the case.

For me the question of free will comes down to the notion that God is love.

Love demands free will, does it not? That is, love between two sovereign participants. Without free will to love the other back, there is no mutual love.

So if there is compulsary reconciliation, is there still free will to reject the other party? Is it really love?

Originally posted by vivify
No; Pharaoh didn't harden his heart, God hardened Pharoah's heart. The Bible is very clear on that.

Hello Vivify, I know that many bible readers take what the bible says, "God hardened Pharoah"s heart" literally, but if God hardened his heart it contradicts the rest of the bible, not to mention freedom of will.

It also does not make a lot of sense. There are other verses that seem to say one thing while actually meaning something else. For example, God told Balaam to go with the men to Balak, then when Balaam went, God's anger was aroused.Num 22:20

The ability to communicate with words is one thing that sets mankind apart from all other creatures. God is the Author of language, and no one has ever used language as precisely as God does in the Bible, including His use of figures of speech, of which there are more than 200 varieties in Scripture.
When most people say, “a figure of speech,” they are speaking in general terms of something that is not true to fact. However, genuine “figures of speech” are legitimate grammatical and lexical forms that add emphasis and feeling to what we say and write. In the Bible, God uses figures of speech to emphasize things that He wants us to see as important. Many people who read the Bible never think to ask themselves, “How do we know what God wants emphasized in His Word?” God uses figures of speech to put emphasis where He wants emphasis, so it is important that we recognize and properly interpret the figures of speech in the Bible. Knowing the figures of speech God uses in the Bible helps us to understand the true meaning of Scripture and enables us to more fully enjoy its richness.
E.W. Bullinger, author of the "Companion bible" has an index with dozens of different figures of speech.
When God "hardened Pharoah's heart" the figure "idiom of permission and metonomy are used.
There usage are found here....
http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/the-figure-of-speech-metonymy-as-used-in-the-bible

Many of them are explained here...
http://www.truthortradition.com/?s=figures+of+speech

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Hello Vivify, I know that many bible readers take what the bible says, "God hardened Pharoah"s heart" literally, but if God hardened his heart it contradicts the rest of the bible, not to mention freedom of will.

It also does not make a lot of sense. There are other verses that seem to say one thing while actually meaning something else. For example, ...[text shortened]... ible

Many of them are explained here...
http://www.truthortradition.com/?s=figures+of+speech

You are describing every self-anointed cherry picker's dream.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Hello Vivify, I know that many bible readers take what the bible says, "God hardened Pharoah"s heart" literally, but if God hardened his heart it contradicts the rest of the bible, not to mention freedom of will.

It also does not make a lot of sense. There are other verses that seem to say one thing while actually meaning something else. For example, ...[text shortened]... ible

Many of them are explained here...
http://www.truthortradition.com/?s=figures+of+speech

Hi Checkbaiter. This is a slippery slope that you are suggesting. At what point do we find things in the Bible that we disagree with....and blame it on poor interpretation, or 'figure of speech'?

The story of God hardening the heart of Pharoah has always troubled me. Because God didn't just do it once.....He did it 10 times...resulting in plagues and death. I have always thought that on his own....Pharoah would have gladly let the people go after the very first plague, wanting no more destruction for his own people. But, the Bible seems to make clear, that God made sure that ALL 10 plagues happened, because God altered Pharoah's free choice.....and hardened his heart.

Don't we need to just throw our hands up.....and admit when we find something in the Bible revolting? Or impossible to understand?

The fact that you are suggesting 'figure of speech' is a new one to me, and just 'appears' to make excuses for God's seemingly clear motive and behavior.