The Adamic Problem

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,261
2,386
113
#21
That is a non sequitur :)
To be fair to Trofimus, it's not a non sequitur if you take his position that God's predetermining is what causes his foreknowing, and God therefore has no foreknowing without the antecedent cause of predetermining.

I suppose you could take his position, but you aren't logically compelled to do so, and that position probably undermines some other doctrines.

- This convoluted mess is mapped out in post #15 and #16... but it's pretty messy because I was in a hurry.
- And I think Trofimus is just bored, lol.



I really only jumped into this because some of these very old arguments are still used by atheists to attack theism.

...

....
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#22
Everything comes back in the end to this: Did Adam sin freely? If you answer yes, then you will be told, his fall was not foreseen. If you answer no, then you will be told, he is not guilty.

Pierre Bayle, Dictionnaire, Jansenius, G
You will be told by who?
you will be told ultimately by people who make of themselves judges of God.

Adam sinned freely? then it will be accused that a good god could not have ordained that Adam should fall under sin, and reasoned that instead, God's omniscience and sovereign purpose must be denied. ((but have a look at Romans 11:32))

Adam's fall was by God's will? then it will be accused that a just god cannot righteously judge those who under His sovereign power, and reasoned that instead, God's holiness and authority must be denied. ((but have a look at Romans 9:19, and don't forget verse 20!))

admittedly without context, i don't see that Msgr Bayle is making an argument. i consider that he is instead succinctly giving a synopsis of the theological arguments men make, in such a way that comments on the absurd impasse human logic arrives at
 

glf1

Active member
Jun 10, 2018
314
124
43
#23
Everything comes back in the end to this: Did Adam sin freely? If you answer yes, then you will be told, his fall was not foreseen. If you answer no, then you will be told, he is not guilty.

Pierre Bayle, Dictionnaire, Jansenius, G
Hey! trofimus... PTL!
In my opinion! lol
The Lord is everywhere present and no where absent. I also see the Lord as every when present and no when absent. Or time is created just as the rest of the universe and the Lord exists outside of time, or that time stretches out before him all at once. So from the Lord's viewpoint, a look to the left and there is Adam and Eve, straight ahead and there we are, and to the right is the future where heaven and earth will pass away. The Lord is able to watch events that he set in motion from the beginning, play out without ever influencing a single act or thought. The Lord is sovereign though and will move in our lives or surroundings as he will; and I suspect, that if he hardens someone's heart, then they are free from judgment for those acts that are a result of that hardening.
Thus the Lord knowing the end from the beginning, is just a look away.
Maranatha!
 

Deade

Called of God
Dec 17, 2017
16,724
10,529
113
77
Vinita, Oklahoma, USA
yeshuaofisrael.org
#24
Everything comes back in the end to this: Did Adam sin freely? If you answer yes, then you will be told, his fall was not foreseen. If you answer no, then you will be told, he is not guilty.

Pierre Bayle, Dictionnaire, Jansenius, G
Common human logic. We need not judge Adam nor God's purpose with him. Yes, the fall was predestined just as the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8).

God could probably give us a flowchart that describes His predestination and we still wouldn't get it. I am sure when we put off our flesh, God will share many strange and wonderful things of the spiritual realm. :cool:
 

CharliRenee

Member
Staff member
Nov 4, 2014
6,687
7,165
113
#25
Eve ate of the tree, and Adam said I will die with you.
I ate of the tree, and Jesus said I will die for you.
Adam didn't sin he transgressed. If I read my bible right
What is the difference between sin and transgression?
 

memyselfi

Junior Member
Jan 12, 2017
503
260
63
#26
Everything comes back in the end to this: Did Adam sin freely? If you answer yes, then you will be told, his fall was not foreseen. If you answer no, then you will be told, he is not guilty.

Pierre Bayle, Dictionnaire, Jansenius, G
What if the answer is yes, but G-d chose not to forcibly stop him but in Gen. 3:15 gave a second chance to free will?

This question is not very smart!?! Not you but the person you quoted!
 

CharliRenee

Member
Staff member
Nov 4, 2014
6,687
7,165
113
#27
Common human logic. We need not judge Adam nor God's purpose with him. Yes, the fall was predestined just as the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8).

God could probably give us a flowchart that describes His predestination and we still wouldn't get it. I am sure when we put off our flesh, God will share many strange and wonderful things of the spiritual realm. :cool:
I sure hope so. One of the coolest things I hope for.
 

Lillywolf

Well-known member
Aug 29, 2018
1,562
543
113
#28
Everything comes back in the end to this: Did Adam sin freely? If you answer yes, then you will be told, his fall was not foreseen. If you answer no, then you will be told, he is not guilty.

Pierre Bayle, Dictionnaire, Jansenius, G
I would say that Pierre's observation would then make our faith invalid. Given the content of the equation as described. Not surprising for one who admired the philosophy accorded Pyrrhonists.
 

Zmouth

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2012
3,391
134
63
#29
The question is not whether death entered into the world because Adam sinned freely or not, since it repented the LORD that he had made man on earth, therefore being omniscient the LORD had known before the making of mankind on earth that his word would not always strive with man, since the days of man's flesh on earth shall be no more than a hundred and twenty years.
 

Zmouth

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2012
3,391
134
63
#30
If Adam sinned freely, i.e. without predetermination, his action was not predictable, therefore could not be foreseen

----
A person can sin without it being predetermined, and yet still forseen.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#31
I have like 16 notifications so, I am afraid I cannot respond to all of you.

The OP is not my own, its a quotation as is clear, its not my opinion, I am Leibnizian. I found this summary to be interesting for two most common camps (arminians/calvinists) and therefore I post it to support discussion.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#32
1. This only works if you assume that God is ONLY ABLE to foresee because he first predetermines... thus he has NO KNOWLEDGE of anything unless it is something he has predeterimined.

- In this line of reasoning, God's predeterminism comes first, before his foreknowing.
- Thus God only SEES INTO THE FUTURE because he knows his own plans... and by this logic, we could even postulate that he doesn't really see the future at all; he simply has awareness of his own plans.

2. There is no logical reason to make this assumption, that God only foresees what he has first predetermined... that predetermining causes his foreknowing.

3. There is no logical reason to assume foreknowing only means foreknowing if there is first a sizable helping of predeterminism to create the foreknowing.

4. Just doesn't work. There is no logical necessity for the foreknowing of an omniscient being to be caused by anything at all.

5. If a divine being is omniscient, and knows all, then he simply knows all. We have no logical grounds to state he only knows all because he first predetermined all.

6. Reiterate: We have no logical grounds to affirm his foreknowing can only exist if it is caused by something else.

This would actually diminish his property of omniscience, and lessen it to a mere contingent property... it would no longer be a necessary property as it would be contingent on something else.

This would greatly diminish his divine and necessary property of omniscience.

7. Furthermore, we can go to scripture and make a case against this.



There are other arguments to be made against this first leg, before we even move on to the other leg, or before we discus the way these two legs sit in antithesis... but we don't require a multiplicity of arguments to break a false dilemma.


All we need is one "feasible" alternative to break a dilemma.


...
You basically stated the same thing 7times.

And as I can see, you are trying to dance around, saying "it does not have to be so, we do not know how it can be, you just need to invent some other option", but you gave no other usable system. Please, give. Until that, its just pure sophism and throwing formally logical statements without any content.

The issue is the freedom of Adam. If it was always a must that he will do what he did, was it his guilt? If not and if his actions were random, totally free from being certain, was God able to foresee it?

P.S. is there any good reason to go to CC except being bored? :)
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#34
I would say that Pierre's observation would then make our faith invalid. Given the content of the equation as described. Not surprising for one who admired the philosophy accorded Pyrrhonists.
P. Bayle was a calvinist, but he liked to argue for various sides and formulate problems to stirr up the discussion. Playing the "devils advocate", so to say.

His goal was to prove that our rationality and reason is not able to describe God and his works and therefore Christianity is about faith. In the era of Enlightenment this had its influence and separated science from religion.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#36
God could probably give us a flowchart that describes His predestination and we still wouldn't get it.
for a long time i've been looking forward to seeing the blueprints. and we shall. we will fully know even as we are fully known ;)
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#37
P. Bayle was a calvinist, but he liked to argue for various sides and formulate problems to stirr up the discussion. Playing the "devils advocate", so to say.

His goal was to prove that our rationality and reason is not able to describe God and his works and therefore Christianity is about faith. In the era of Enlightenment this had its influence and separated science from religion.
o that's nice, i was correct in what i guessed from his statement about his intent ((post #22)) :)

so many others are arguing with him about what he said but he wasn't putting either of those statements out as tho they are what should be believed
 

Scrobulous

Active member
Sep 17, 2018
290
73
28
#38
Everything comes back in the end to this: Did Adam sin freely? If you answer yes, then you will be told, his fall was not foreseen. If you answer no, then you will be told, he is not guilty.

Pierre Bayle, Dictionnaire, Jansenius, G
Am I being too simplistic? Why could Adam not have had a free choice and God, being outside time, simply knew what Adam’s free decision was? God could still go ahead with the human project, because He knows He can bring it to a good end.
 

BaptistBibleBeliever

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2018
2,244
1,032
113
70
Illinois
#39
Calvinism has no biblical logic whatsoever . . . or should I say, it is built upon the rational thinking of man apart from God's thinking. It is designed by the wise man

How dare a capricious god command a man to keep a law and then crush him because he is unable. But our God is a loving God Who provided Himself to make atonement for sinful man.

"And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" (I Corinthians 2:4).

God used Paul through the power of the Holy Spirit to evangelize much of Asia Minor and to build churches to the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Calvinist may not suggest that his ways and his thoughts are not equal with God's, but they prove by their actions and teachings that they are at least equal with His thoughts and clearly understand His ways.

People are still being saved today because of the witness of a family member or even a complete stranger. People are being saved because foolish and base men of this world are willing to deliver the message of love and forgiveness to his sinful neighbor.

You can bet there are Calvinists the world over that are shaking their heads over some people that get saved. "I didn't think that cad had a chance, how is he elected?' They are so pitiful and confounded.

"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty" (I Corinthians 1:27).