If God is all knowing, and He must be, because he supposedly sent his Son to earth to be executed for a crime he didn’t commit, 33 years beforehand, why did He create a flawed humanity, then dictate that the penalty for such a flaw is death, only to know that He would have to make His Son flesh to pay the penalty for the violation of a law that not only did He Himself write, but the penalty for such would be death – by His own decree?
keep the change on December 24, 2008 at 4:09 AM

Hi keep the change:

I think Acts 2:22 may provide some help.

I believe the Bible teaches that God’s ultimate purpose is to reveal his character. In that, at the time of creation God foreknew the introduction of sin and He conceived of a solution. The penalty for the flaw (sin) in free will Humanity has to be death because God’s holy nature requires it. Death is the punishment for sin. The eradication of all humanity would have been a just penalty for our sin. God’s solution is to ordain for the Second person of the Trinity –Jesus Christ—to pay for the penalty, by becoming a perfect and acceptable sacrifice in the eyes of a holy God who does not tolerate sin. The Book of Hebrews in the New Testament deals with this further.

The atheist may respond, “but I don’t agree with this.”

And my response is that as a Bible-believing Christian, I accept this Biblical account or meta-narrative on the same epistemological ground as the atheist does for his meta-narrative: on faith.

I accept the Scriptures and the accompanying meta-narrative it teaches on faith. Just like the atheist accepts his naturalistic meta-narrative and storyline of the “in the beginning was nature and nature alone….” on pure faith alone.

However, the difference between our 2 competing meta-narratives is that I believe the atheist cannot account for the usage of the laws of logic in his worldview. My Christian worldview can and does account for the laws of logic. Hence, there is evidence for pre-supposing the truth and validity of the Christian theistic worldview. The laws of logic show that there is a philosophical defeater contra atheism, because atheists have to borrow from the Christian world view in order to “do any heavy philosophical lifting at all.”

You are correct that the Christian God is defined as “omniscient.” But there is no philosophical tension and no contradiction between a divine being knowing in advance what free will human beings will choose to do without constraint with their own decisions.

The existence of God is a separate issue from the doctrine of God or the separate issue of the decree of God, i.e., “why did God permit the introduction of evil or sin into the created realm?”

The above point is one that many atheists or skeptics tend to forget. Personally, I may disagree (and I do) with the philosophy of Noam Chomsky, but the issue of my disagreement with his dogma or principles or nature or perspective is a separate issue from the question of, “does Noam Chomsky even exist?”

Far too often, an atheist or skeptic will argue in a fallacy:

“Well, I don’t agree with why God did XYZ or why God allowed evil. Therefore, I am an atheist.” But the matter of you disagreeing with God’s plan or God’s will is a separate matter altogether for the ontological issue of, “does God exist?” Atheists overlook this point far too often.

But I digress……sorry………….returning to your question above:

God created human beings with free will.
That means that God could not have created a world where free will human beings did not sin.

Now, you and I or anyone else may disagree with God’s original decision to create or not, but my only point is:

the introduction of free will human beings in the created order raises the

problem of evil .

And Scriptures, which I accept on faith (just like the atheist accepts his meta-narrative “on faith”) provide an answer to the problem of evil.

ColtsFan on December 24, 2008 at 4:47 AM

Why create a race of beings, condemn them to death by your own dictate? Then after having done so, why change your mind later if you are omnipotent? Then after changing your mind, why decide that instead of rescinding the death sentence as easily as you imposed it, you get your pound of flesh from somewhere else and make someone else die instead? Where is the logic of that? Then, after deciding that you have to have your pound of flesh, why take it out on your Son? Why would God use his own son as a whipping boy to pay for a crime which didn’t even exist until He invented a rule to be violated?
keep the change on December 24, 2008 at 4:09 AM

That is a relevant question (s).

I believe, on faith in the Scriptures, that God wanted to reveal His nature and character to humanity.

The Scriptures do not portray God changing His mind.

Sin against a holy and eternal God pre-dates humanity.

That is, before God created humanity, sin was punishable by death. That is due to God’s just nature which requires death for transgression.

Personally, as a Bible-believing Christian, I would not invent such a conception of God. I would invent a rather invent a God of my own choosing, a God made in the image of Colts Fan.

But would we together not agree that I would then be guilty of engaging in anthropology, and not theology? Because I would then be guilty of making God in my own human image, instead of moving from what God’s putative revealed word says about His nature or character.

ColtsFan on December 24, 2008 at 5:00 AM

Keep the Change:

You have raised deep questions.
May I point you to this author , or perhaps this book by a different theologian?

Both are good surveys.

Your questions may find cogent answers here or, particularly, on this book dealing with the Incarnation.

Your question involving Philosophy of Time be found here.

ColtsFan on December 24, 2008 at 5:27 AM