I think one thing to consider is that God does have some limitations. God can’t be anything other than himself….he can’t not be divine in nature. God can’t not exist. God can’t create another being that is equal to or greater than himself. God is incapable of not knowing all things past, present and future. God also can’t create beings who are given free will and that will only choose him.
I've seen this line of reasoning before: define God by listing what attributes he doesn't have. It seems smart at first, but besides involving vigorous handwaving, this method has a bigger problem: how is a deity defined only in terms of negatives different from nothingness?
I have a piece a piece of toast. The piece of toast can't be anything other than a piece of toast. It can't be non-bread in nature. It can't not exist. It can't create another piece of toast that is equal to or greater than itself. It's incapable of not knowing all things past, present and future. The piece of toast also can't create beings who are giving free will that will only choose him.
And it's so good too!
God’s Foreknowledge is exactly what it is…knowledge of all things to come….it can’t not be that. I’m curious how it could be? The reprobate had every opportunity to turn to God and they refused…..they made their choices….the choices weren’t made for them. Knowing every single thing that will happen is not the same thing as programming “choices” into folks that they are forced to make.
No. You cannot have your cake and eat it too: either we have free will, in which case God is not omniscient because he can't know what we will choose before we choose it, or God is omniscient in which case we don't have free will.
In this discussion, God is marked as the only one “to blame”. Well, if God neither preprograms our choices nor forces us to abide by his will then we have to consider our lineage. Our parents, grandparents, great grandparents and so forth all made the decision to have sex and some did so for the specific purpose of making little avxo’s and little MOS’. Now, God certainly has both the right and ability to intervene in his creation, but he allows for the contingency of free will and yet remains sovereign. Our lives are completely wrapped in the choices made by our parents. God, in his providence, made it possible for his creation to “go forth and multiply”. Now given his foreknowledge of the future choices of these new folks should God have eliminated those that he knew wouldn’t choose him? Shouldn’t all people have the opportunity to choose God?
If they have a choice yes, but that choice is incompatible with one of the major, defining characteristics of God: omniscience. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Further, the problem with your personal objections is that you fully realize and comprehend the implications of your choices. In this moment, you are in direct defiance of God and you continue to refuse him. The reprobate world realized the same. God knew you would defy him, but he didn’t preprogram that decision into you nor does he want you to make that choice. Is it better that you not be created in the first place or created without options or choice?
If the inescapable result of me being created is that I will suffer for an eternity - and the Biblical hell is certainly described as eternal torment - and he knows that then yes, not being created would certainly be better.
Keep in mind, that within your current, Godless existence that the expressions of goodness and beauty and love and compassion we experience in this life are directly attributed to the very nature of God. The very visage of humanity is an expression of his divine countenance. You already exist in his grace yet you defiantly lash out against him. God created us to come into fellowship with him, but provided for our free will (with the understanding of the limitation therein) so that we may make the purest choice possible to accept or reject him. Those that reject him will exit this life and enter into an eternity in which all the divine attributes of God will be removed. What remains in that existence will encompass hell and those that populate its ranks are those that chose “no God for me”.
Boy, you sure know a lot about this God that you say you do not comprehend.
There is no requirement on God’s part to satisfy our sin debt. Yes, it’s his creation and his law, but law without the enforcement of penalty is no law at all….it’s meaningless.
The same applies if his law boils down to "I will punish you for your nature, which you cannot fundamentally alter." My birth was a matter outside of my choice, as is my nature. I am, in essence, forced to play a game with loaded dice and held accountable for the losses.
The degree of holiness, righteousness and justice of God’s nature is beyond our ability to comprehend. It’s so inconceivably absolute that it cannot be aligned with unrighteousness in any form whatsoever.
This is meanigless... but something does strike me. For something you describe as "beyond our ability to comprehend" you certainly seem to have no problem comprehending it.
If you were to approach me and slap me in the face the penalty for doing so may be that I slap back…not much.
Or, you know... assault charges.
If you slap a police officer you’re going to spend some time in jail. If you slap the President you’re may spend your life in jail. Now, if you slap an infinite God in the face the penalty will align with the his nature and remain infinite.
Interesting bit of reasoning. There's a few logical fallacies here, but I want to focus on one: you're making a deductive jump from the finite to the infinite and from an actual slap to a figurative slap.
This sin-filled existence will come to an end and from that end will be ushered in something new, something spotless, something without the mar of sin. And it will populated by those of his former creation that chose to align themselves in righteousness with God.
"If you pay me $5 today, I'll pay you $50 in 5 days!"
God also designed his creation so that life is in the blood. He chose that the vehicle to pay for sin is found in blood. The Israelites of the OT atoned for sin via the sacrifice of the prime specimens of their flocks and herds. That was a temporary measure. Why did God choose blood as his vehicle and not something else I couldn’t say. In the end, because of his foreknowledge of our future free choices he entered into his creation as the incarnate Son in Jesus Christ. The spotless lamb who’s perfect, divine blood was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of his divine law. “God should just forgive everyone because it’s his own law that you admit we can’t live up to and yet are subject to.” Correct, we can’t, but God didn’t leave us without the ability to be permanently reconciled with his divine righteousness. That’s why he sent his Son Jesus Christ to pay that sin debt on our behalf.
[First, one small sidenote about the "God also designed his creation so that life is in the blood" bit: you are aware that artificial blood products are now available and it's possible to survice with such products. Right?]
Again, you seem to find no issue with the fact that God instituted a "law" that he knew nobody could follow, then set a penalty for violating this "law." That's bad enough in itself, but there's something even bigger: you say that God can't change that law; it's set and we must all live with the consequences. But you're OK when God develops a workaound, whereby he sent himself-as-his-son, to die to satisfy the requirements of the "law" by proxy.
Do you not see the absurdity?!
I can’t explain every facet of God’s nature and that’s ok. It’s neither required of me nor is it necessary for any of us to fully grasp before we can make a pure choice about God.
You cannot an informed choice about something you do not comprehend.
You want the onus shifted squarely on God’s shoulders and you accept no responsibility for your sins against God.
If God expects worship, then I demand proof that God exists and this particular law is just and moral.
You understand the law, break it, but aren’t complicit.
I don't understand it - I can't understand how a law that punishes me for something that it outside of my control. I consider such a thing unjust and immoral.
In your eyes God should just given everyone a free pass
No. In my eyes, if your God is real, he should not punish people for having the nature he gave them. That he does speaks volumes.
and you refuse to accept that Jesus Christ is that pass because you dislike the concept of faith.
Yes, I refuse to accept something that cannot be proven logically or rationally and is based on nothing but ancient superstition and stories of burning bushes and talking snakes.