Mercy of God?

[Noumenon]

The very fact that the nature of God is merciful denotes inequality on some level. Not on the part of God but in relation to that which is not God.

[Noumenon]

According to Ephesians Chapter 1 those who are in the Lord in the place of eternity were
destined to be there according to adoption through Christ. This then seemingly insinuates
that Christ as savior was an intended forethought even before the creation of man.
If this is the case then the question regarding what we are being saved from is answered
with the three-letter word being sin.

This then could bring us to the acknowledgment that Sin was an acknowledged thing by
God prior to creation itself. Such an acknowledgment then brings us to re-examine our
common view of sins origin and place within eternity and that is the common Christian
viewpoint that sin is opposition to the will of God discovered or "willed" into existence
by Lucifer and propagated to all creation. Instead such an acknowledgment would
substantiate such thoughts that sin is opposition to the will of God and thus existed
prior to the enacting of it by Lucifer for we know that the Will of God existed prior to
Lucifer so then the "condition" of there existing an opposition to it is quite plausible.

In the acknowledgment that God had will prior to the existence of volitional creatures,
such an acknowledgment would lead to the possibility that any being to
be created (which is obviously then not God) would then be subject to the awareness of
there existing an opposition potential to the will of God from the onset of their cognition.
Because the very recognition of the potential to make a choice that is not directly
controlled or dictated by God would then lead to the awareness that there is then a
potential to choose alternatively to the implicit will declared by God known as the Law of
God.

To tell a person to not do something is an indirect acknowledgment of their ability to do
otherwise. The assertion of ones will in regards to a command given is really a placement
of value upon a specific condition or will. Do not eat of this fruit is a command and God
makes it clear what decision He would like for them to not only make but "continue" to
make, this very condition implicates the ability to tergiversate.

My point is that sin did not originate with Satan or any other creature but instead with
God. Sin was existent as a potential prior to Satan's existence however this does not
support the otiose argument that because sin (not the act of sin but the acknowledged
potential, conditional properties and ramifications of its existence by God) existed prior
to me, or was apart of my reality that I am absolved from culpability for acting sinfully.
Because even so the existence of a choice does not force ones choosing of it. If Sin exists
as an inherent condition of free will and free will is a condition created by God ergo
linking the existence of sin to God, such a thing still in no way makes God responsible
for ones choosing of sin nor does it make God duplicitous in Will because God places no
value in such antithesis to His Will and makes it possible to adhere to His Will.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

My point is that sin did not originate with Satan or any other creature but instead with God.

Impossible, for it is impossible for God to sin. Before God created other beings, He is One. As your conclusion is wrong, so is the reasoning which brought you to that conclusion.

Sin was existent as a potential prior to Satan's existence

Existence as a potential isn't existence. I have rental property; if I write «no pets allowed» on a lease, physical pets do not magically exist as potentials. If a tenant gets a pet in violation of the lease, I am not responsible for the tenant's «sin» even if I forsaw the possible violation of my rule and the resultant eviction.

FL

PS for pet-lovers: I do not write No Pets on my leases but I do write No Smoking.

[catherine]

Hi Noumenon, welcome to this forum. This is a very interesting topic and one which I have pondered on. You said:

'My point is that sin did not originate with Satan or any other creature but instead with God'. I think of it this way. The potential for sin is different to sin being enacted. So prior to any other creations ie angels, when God was 'alone' (whatever that means) the knowledge of 'sin' must still have been there, but this is not sin. Once a mind is created with free will, then the means of making sin a reality , is possible. I don't think we'll fully understand the whole 'sin, free will' thing, but it is interesting to discuss.

regards

Catherine

[Cross.eyed]

Hi noumenon, welcome to the board.

This then could bring us to the acknowledgment that Sin was an acknowledged thing by
God prior to creation itself.

If no sin had been committed, then it couldn't be an acknowledged "thing."
As FL stated, it is impossible for GOD to commit sin. It is not in His nature.

Because the very recognition of the potential to make a choice that is not directly
controlled or dictated by God would then lead to the awareness that there is then a
potential to choose alternatively to the implicit will declared by God known as the Law of
God.

You have moved your position from an acknowledgment of a thing to a potential choice.
Potentiality only indicates the possibility of being, not the actual being of.

If Sin exists
as an inherent condition of free will and free will is a condition created by God ergo
linking the existence of sin to God,

Why should we assume that sin was inherent? A thing must exist before it can be recognized.
We don't know how much time had elapsed before the fall, but we can assume that there was no sin committed for"a time".
Evil doesn't exist on it's own but is a corruption of good(GOD) so, in a logical sense,there was corruption that GOD could not have done, otherwise, He would be a corrupt God.

[Noumenon]

My point is that sin did not originate with Satan or any other creature but instead with God.

Impossible, for it is impossible for God to sin. Before God created other beings, He is One. As your conclusion is wrong, so is the reasoning which brought you to that conclusion.

Sin was existent as a potential prior to Satan's existence

Existence as a potential isn't existence. I have rental property; if I write «no pets allowed» on a lease, physical pets do not magically exist as potentials. If a tenant gets a pet in violation of the lease, I am not responsible for the tenant's «sin» even if I forsaw the possible violation of my rule and the resultant eviction.

FL

PS for pet-lovers: I do not write No Pets on my leases but I do write No Smoking.

Hello Fürstentum Liechtenstein pleased to make your acquaintance. In response to your analogy regarding 'No pets allowed' on a lease, it is clear that such a statement does in fact acknowledge that pets do in fact exist. The prohibition of pets within the context of a lease agreement is a definitive exclusion of that which is real (E.g. pets) in order to further clarify conditions which are acceptable and those which are not. However the stated prohibition therefore exists as a result of those who own pets and would thereby potentially be interested in renting, as well as those who may obtain a pet in violation of the lease agreement once the lease agreement has been signed.

It is true that the violation of such an agreement does not make the person who established the prohibition culpable; regardless of their awareness that such a violation could exist. However the eviction process serves as a preexisting condition should such a breech of contract arise. Therefore both the law and consequence represent an acknowledgment of the potential for pets and the renters potential for violation of the agreement.

Thus pets in this case serves as the potential for that which does exist. I am not asserting that God has committed sin nor do I assert that God is capable of such an act. However I do propose that any and all will which opposes the will of God is in fact sin which therefore establishes God's will as the premise for what sin is and is not. There would be no sin if there were no will of God. Therefore any will that is not that of Gods therefore can potentially be in opposition to God and such a potential is an inherent property of all beings in possession of volition. So therefore the potential for something to be is indicative of that which does in fact exist regardless of whether such a potential has manifested or not.

~Noumenon

[Noumenon]

Hi Noumenon, welcome to this forum. This is a very interesting topic and one which I have pondered on. You said:

'My point is that sin did not originate with Satan or any other creature but instead with God'. I think of it this way. The potential for sin is different to sin being enacted. So prior to any other creations ie angels, when God was 'alone' (whatever that means) the knowledge of 'sin' must still have been there, but this is not sin. Once a mind is created with free will, then the means of making sin a reality , is possible. I don't think we'll fully understand the whole 'sin, free will' thing, but it is interesting to discuss.

regards

Catherine

Hello Catherine pleased to make your acquaintance. You make a clear delineation between potential for sin and sin being enacted, as well as the knowledge of sin being quite different than sin itself. I must agree with you that there is quite a difference between a potential and an actuality, one could be and the other has become. Despite this difference both conditions denote sin as a reality whether actualized or not. For God to have knowledge of that which opposes Gods will is then to be aware of that which is not God. That which is acknowledged by God at all is very real; wouldn't you say?

[cslewislover]

Hi Noumenon, welcome to this forum. This is a very interesting topic and one which I have pondered on. You said:

'My point is that sin did not originate with Satan or any other creature but instead with God'. I think of it this way. The potential for sin is different to sin being enacted. So prior to any other creations ie angels, when God was 'alone' (whatever that means) the knowledge of 'sin' must still have been there, but this is not sin. Once a mind is created with free will, then the means of making sin a reality , is possible. I don't think we'll fully understand the whole 'sin, free will' thing, but it is interesting to discuss.

regards

Catherine

Hello Catherine pleased to make your acquaintance. You make a clear delineation between potential for sin and sin being enacted, as well as the knowledge of sin being quite different than sin itself. I must agree with you that there is quite a difference between a potential and an actuality, one could be and the other has become. Despite this difference both conditions denote sin as a reality whether actualized or not. For God to have knowledge of that which opposes Gods will is then to be aware of that which is not God. That which is acknowledged by God at all is very real; wouldn't you say?

In the book of Job, God allows Satan to do evil to Job. God would not do the evil himself because it's not possible, yet the evil worked toward God's plan. It's like that with all sin (as far as I can think of it).

[Noumenon]

Hi Noumenon, welcome to this forum. This is a very interesting topic and one which I have pondered on. You said:

'My point is that sin did not originate with Satan or any other creature but instead with God'. I think of it this way. The potential for sin is different to sin being enacted. So prior to any other creations ie angels, when God was 'alone' (whatever that means) the knowledge of 'sin' must still have been there, but this is not sin. Once a mind is created with free will, then the means of making sin a reality , is possible. I don't think we'll fully understand the whole 'sin, free will' thing, but it is interesting to discuss.

regards

Catherine

Hello Catherine pleased to make your acquaintance. You make a clear delineation between potential for sin and sin being enacted, as well as the knowledge of sin being quite different than sin itself. I must agree with you that there is quite a difference between a potential and an actuality, one could be and the other has become. Despite this difference both conditions denote sin as a reality whether actualized or not. For God to have knowledge of that which opposes Gods will is then to be aware of that which is not God. That which is acknowledged by God at all is very real; wouldn't you say?

In the book of Job, God allows Satan to do evil to Job. God would not do the evil himself because it's not possible, yet the evil worked toward God's plan. It's like that with all sin (as far as I can think of it).

God being complicit in regards to evil being enacted in order to further a righteous agenda brings light to the question of culpability in regards to acting sinfully, while also ratifying Gods relationship with sin as being one where sins existence is premised upon a superior antithetical will. Thus sin exists because God exists.

[cslewislover]

God being complicit in regards to evil being enacted in order to further a righteous agenda brings light to the question of culpability in regards to acting sinfully,

Do you mean God is also at fault for our sin?

while also ratifying Gods relationship with sin as being one where sins existence is premised upon a superior antithetical will.

A "superior antithetical will" sounds like someting higher than God, but that isn't what you seem to mean (?).

Thus sin exists because God exists.

Everything exists because God exists, since He created all. His character, however, does not will that we sin or do hurt to others, yet sin seems necessary for His ultimate ends. I know I already said this. Is that last sentence the only point you're trying to make? (Well, it would be helpful if I went back and read the rest of this thread . . . ).

[Noumenon]

Hi noumenon, welcome to the board.

This then could bring us to the acknowledgment that Sin was an acknowledged thing by
God prior to creation itself.

If no sin had been committed, then it couldn't be an acknowledged "thing."
As FL stated, it is impossible for GOD to commit sin. It is not in His nature.

Because the very recognition of the potential to make a choice that is not directly
controlled or dictated by God would then lead to the awareness that there is then a
potential to choose alternatively to the implicit will declared by God known as the Law of
God.

You have moved your position from an acknowledgment of a thing to a potential choice.
Potentiality only indicates the possibility of being, not the actual being of.

If Sin exists
as an inherent condition of free will and free will is a condition created by God ergo
linking the existence of sin to God,

Why should we assume that sin was inherent? A thing must exist before it can be recognized.
We don't know how much time had elapsed before the fall, but we can assume that there was no sin committed for"a time".
Evil doesn't exist on it's own but is a corruption of good(GOD) so, in a logical sense,there was corruption that GOD could not have done, otherwise, He would be a corrupt God.

Hello Cross.eyed pleasure corresponding with you.

If no "sin" has been committed then such a condition does not obviate there existing a potential for such a condition to occur.
If such a potential can occur then its existence is evident.
God acknowledged sin prior to the creation of the world thus Ephesians chapter 1 which describes Gods plan for mankind to be adopted through Christ. Potential in this context has nothing to do with the manifestation of sin but simply the potential for there to be opposition to the will of God from that which is not God. Ephesians makes very clear that God acknowledged this potential prior to there even being an earth or mankind to manifest sin.

Committing a crime is quite different than there existing the concept of crime and the means by which the manifestation of crime to occur.
I am not stating that sin was committed only that God had acknowledged it before it did occur thus making sin a real thing. Are you saying that by God enacting preparations for sins occurrence that sin therefore is not real? God acknowledging something makes that something real wouldn't you say?

[cslewislover]

The very fact that the nature of God is merciful denotes inequality on some level. Not on the part of God but in relation to that which is not God.

Can you elaborate on this?

God is merciful, so inequality exists.

It is not the will of God for inequality to exist, but it has consequences for all of creation (which is not God).

This is what I get out of your statement, but it doesn't make sense to me.

[Noumenon]

The very fact that the nature of God is merciful denotes inequality on some level. Not on the part of God but in relation to that which is not God.

Can you elaborate on this?

God is merciful, so inequality exists.

It is not the will of God for inequality to exist, but it has consequences for all of creation (which is not God).

This is what I get out of your statement, but it doesn't make sense to me.

What I mean is since mercy is an attribute of God such an attribute is indicative of recipients of this mercy.
Since God is perfection all that is not God is flawed to some degree and is therefore in need of mercy.
Ergo creation is inherently flawed and in need of mercy.
Thus God is merciful so inequality exists.
One absolute, absolutely defines it's antithesis.
Light = Dark
Good = Bad
God = Not God
Righteous = Not Righteous

~Noumenon

[cslewislover]

The very fact that the nature of God is merciful denotes inequality on some level. Not on the part of God but in relation to that which is not God.

Can you elaborate on this?

God is merciful, so inequality exists.

It is not the will of God for inequality to exist, but it has consequences for all of creation (which is not God).

This is what I get out of your statement, but it doesn't make sense to me.

What I mean is since mercy is an attribute of God such an attribute is indicative of recipients of this mercy.
Since God is perfection all that is not God is flawed to some degree and is therefore in need of mercy.
Ergo creation is inherently flawed and in need of mercy.
Thus God is merciful so inequality exists.
One absolute, absolutely defines it's antithesis.
Light = Dark
Good = Bad
God = Not God
Righteous = Not Righteous

~Noumenon

Doesn't defining something mean quite a bit different than saying it's equal? I believe it does. By knowing darkness, we can know light, but they are not at all equal. Secondly, if God created all things, then he is different and above them; there can't be an antithesis of Him (God = Not God). This simply sounds very Eastern religion. I have no argument with creation (or humans) needing mercy - it surely does. To say that since God is merciful, his creation must require it - I don't know if that's necessarily logical. Also, to say that since His mercy exists everything is flawed, is also not necessarily logical. If His intention was to create free beings that could then exhibit "flaws", are we truly flawed, or only exhibiting the freedom given us? By your other posts it's obvious that this is what you're interested in. But it seems like it can't lead anywhere - that it ends up being circular. God created us free, so we sin, so we need his mercy, and God is merciful, so he created us free . . . not sure. But there's more to it than that, or course, and that's God's ultimate plan, which we don't know.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Hello Noumenon,

thanks for your answer. You sound like a lawyer! (What do you do for a living?)

I am not asserting that God has committed sin nor do I assert that God is capable of such an act.

Can you affirm that God exists? If you cannot - and I suspect you cannot - then discussing God's relationship to sin is meaningless.

However I do propose that any and all will which opposes the will of God is in fact sin which therefore establishes God's will as the premise for what sin is and is not.

This sounds biblical. Sin is deviation from, defiance of, perversion of and rebellion against God...I may have forgotten some.

There would be no sin if there were no will of God.

If there would be no will of God, there would be nothing - no-things - to discuss anyway.

Therefore any will that is not that of Gods therefore can potentially be in opposition to God and such a potential is an inherent property of all beings in possession of volition.

I'm not sure that this is accurate. It sounds logical from the standpoint of human reason, but it doesn't sound biblical. God has promised to make believers like Jesus. Jesus has free will and it is in agreement with God's. Ergo when I am changed, I will be like Jesus and my free will shall be like Jesus', unwilling to sin.

So therefore the potential for something to be is indicative of that which does in fact exist regardless of whether such a potential has manifested or not.

Interesting. If you believe this, you believe that God exists because of the mere possibility that a Supreme Being can exist. Watch as I twist your words:

So therefore the potential for God to be is indicative of that which does in fact exist regardless of whether such a potential has manifested or not.

Tell me: I have Kant's The Critique of Pure Reason. I have dusted it off and have opened it to Chapter III, sections IV to VII. Are you discussing from this?

FL