Nations University call

[sanantone]

--snip--

I'll consider asking around again. At least those professors and/or student forums would offer a challenge, as opposed of ignoring it for arbitrary reasons. At this point, it's a Word document sitting in a folder that I haven't touched in six months. Even taking the most advantageous position (that all of Christendom could be convinced that my ideas are correct), I won't significantly benefit (or harm, but benefit is preferred) the belief system. Taking the worst position, I waste a lot more time for an idea that is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things which will never be accepted anyway.

TL;DR: Counter argument that I wrote without thinking about whether it was necessary, but didn't want to delete because I don't see harm in leaving it.

However, I've read the book, and the main argument Erickson makes which comes closest to standing against my argument is that process theology (which I do not assert to be correct, as I disagree with most tenets of their position) is invalidated by the nature of transcendence. Erickson asserts that man does not have any part in determining the future (which I have about 40 verses proving the contrary), but provides only a claim devoid of proof.

Erickson posits that all of time has already been mapped out, that God knows precisely what will happen (absolute omniscience). If God does possess true omniscience, then there is a reasonable position to hold that God is unjust - especially when combining it with the perspective of absolute transcendence (as Erickson does).

The Bible regularly states that God became angry with people for things they had done, and punished people for those things. Here's the problem: an omniscient God already knew those people would absolutely act in those ways with absolute certainty, meaning that they were incapable of choosing not to do those things, yet were still punished for actions which they were destined to perform and were incapable of avoiding. This necessitates that God is unjust (punishing people for something they couldn't prevent themselves from doing in any circumstance) and perhaps even cruel.

My understanding was not that the people were predestined to do certain things, but God already knew who would choose to sin. But, the Puritans took that idea to the extreme and believed that God chose people for condemnation at birth and there was no such thing as free will.