The [free-will defense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free-will_defense) is an argument commonly attributed to Alvin Plantinga, who developed it as a response to the [logical problem of evil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil#Logical_problem_of_evil) . However, in developing this argument Plantinga unwittingly ended up reinventing/rediscovering the [Molinist doctrine of middle knowledge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free-will_defense#Molinism) , so the key ideas of the argument are not entirely novel, and people have certainly come up with similar defenses independently more than once. The Wikipedia article includes a summary of the argument: > A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good. I have the following objection to this argument: - If human beings were created in the image of God and have free will, then it follows that **God also has free will**. - Likewise, if human beings, in virtue of having free will, are capable of moral evil, **then God, in virtue of having free will, must also be capable of moral evil**. - However, **if God is omnibenevolent, He is not capable of moral evil**. - So it looks like we have a contradiction between the last two points. Said in another way, if God can have free will and be incapable of moral evil at the same time, then why would God create human beings that have free will and yet are ***not*** incapable of moral evil at the same time? In other words, God is a counterexample to the claim that free will necessarily entails being vulnerable to moral evil, since God has free will and yet is not vulnerable to it, and so one wonders why God would create free creatures that are not immune to moral evil, just like He is. How do proponents of the free will defense against the problem of evil resolve this conundrum? --- --- Based on some of the comments received, I will try to write a more formal and rigorous version of the objection: **Premises** - P1: God is omnibenevolent - P2: God is omnibenevolent => God is *not* capable of moral evil - P3: God has free will - P4: God has free will => God is capable of moral evil **Deductions** - D1: God is *not* capable of moral evil (from P1 & P2) - D2: God is capable of moral evil (from P3 & P4) - Contradiction between D1 & D2 (=> God is not capable of moral evil*) should be uncontroversial as well. God cannot do evil. It's impossible/unfeasible for Him. It just won't happen. - P3 (*God has free will*) is based on the intuition that if humans (and angels) have free will, it would be very strange for God not to have free will as well. One could reject this premise and claim that, perhaps, God is a deterministic being who created free creatures. Sure, one could hold such a view, but it would be a very novel (and strange) one, wouldn't it? - P4 (*God has free will => God is capable of moral evil*) is based on the same intuition used by the *free-will defense against the problem of evil*. If evil is explained as an undesired price of having creatures with free will (which God was willing to pay because of how valuable free will is), then what the defense is basically saying is that *free will => capable of moral evil*. So P4 is just a particular application of that rule to God, if we concede that God has free will. --- If anyone is interested in further objections to the *free-will defense against the problem of evil*, feel free (no pun intended) to pay a visit to [this question](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/99881/66156) on Philosophy Stack Exchange.

I _am not_ a Christian. In fact I go in on my own family who are ordained preachers and Christians who _believe_ in Christian stories that make absolutely no sense to me. It occurred to me that if Jesus were to actually do the "second coming" story thing, *all* preachers and churches would immediately go out of business. There wouldn't be any need for third-party _interpretations_ of this or that story, which is what Christianity is all about anyway, because the alleged guy Jesus never wrote anything himself, anyway. Jesus could start a podcast, and *all* preachers, including the pope guy, all bishops, and all run of the mill preachers, and even this Web site, would be completely out of business - you could hear the stories right from the horses mouth, so to speak? Or, would those same preachers, and folks on these boards, and the pope, still throw around their own _interpretations_ of Jesus's podcast, and even try to get rid of the guy Jesus himself, if only to keep their hustle going?

My question is this: Is Paul alluding to the tree of knowledge of good and evil in Romans 1 (and related passages) to support the idea of universal moral awareness? (no I am not arguing for humanism). Romans 1:20 declares: "For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse" (HCSB). While much of Romans 1 addresses the condemnation of sinful humanity and how God “delivered them over in the cravings of their hearts", the subjects of this statement are those "who by their unrighteousness suppress the true" (Romans 1:18). Verse 20 stands out with its emphatic declaration that people are without excuse. This suggests that God’s morality has been revealed to all humanity in some foundational way. Micah 6:8 seems to echo this truth: "Mankind, He has told you what is good and what it is the Lord requires of you: to act justly, to love faithfulness, and to walk humbly with your God." Although spoken directly to Judah, the wording implies something broader—that this truth applies to all of mankind. Genesis 2:9 introduces a crucial element: "The Lord God caused to grow out of the ground every tree pleasing in appearance and good for food, including the tree of life in the middle of the garden, as well as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." I take the phrase "caused to grow" here to mean that God caused to exist, or that he made it. Genesis 3:22 compounds: "The LORD God said, "Since man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil, he must not reach out, take from the tree of life, eat, and live forever." Thus, eating from the tree is part of the fall. Gaining knowledge of good and evil is part of the fall. This raises the question: when humanity ate from the tree, did the tree of knowledge of good and evil impart in all of us some of understanding of good and evil? In other words, does every person—regardless of exposure to Scripture—carry an innate understanding of good derived from this event? This still implies that the knowledge of good and evil can only be known through God and/or His creation (*NOT HUMANLY DERIVED*). Paul adds another layer in Romans 3:20: “the knowledge of sin comes through the law.” This does not mean that good and evil were unknown before the Mosaic law, but rather that the law defined and revealed sin for what it is. Yet Romans 5:13 complicates matters: “In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to a person’s account when there is no law.” The Jews had the law and could identify sin through it; the Gentiles did not, yet this implies that they seemed to know what was good. Scripture also makes clear that God’s concern extends to all people. Ezekiel 18:23 declares: “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? This is the declaration of the Lord God. ‘Instead, don’t I take pleasure when he turns from his ways and lives?’” Similarly, in Jonah 3:10 God relented when Nineveh repented, and Ezekiel 18:32 reaffirms: “I take no pleasure in anyone’s death.” Thus, while the law was given to Israel to expose evil as sin, the implication remains that gentiles retained some knowledge of good. Abimelech provides an example, insisting, “I did this with a clean conscience and clean hands” (Genesis 20:5). If all humanity carries knowledge of good from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then even those who have never heard the gospel still possess some measure of moral awareness. Thank you for your time. *Clarification* There seems to be a misunderstanding of my question. Please note that: 1. I am not a humanist. We would not know good or evil if it wast for God's perfect judgement or intervention. 2. I don't think knowing good and evil makes you righteous. Only God can do that through Jesus Christ. 3. Morality (good moral standing before God) exists whether you have faith in God or not. You may know that stealing is bad without being a believer. Again, knowing this does not make you righteous. 4. God can make something that has a good purpose, an man can corrupt it. For example, God has made rocks, and men can use those rocks to commit murder or the like. This does not mean that God made something evil, but that man corrupted something meant for good.

I don't understand the following counter argument by Jesus. > And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Luke 11:19 One viewpoint is that the Pharisees' students (which I believe is what Jesus meant when he said sons) did try to cast out demons, but that would mean that I would be assuming that the Pharisees' student did actually cast out demons during that time. 1) Would the aforementioned argument be valid? 2) Are there any other ways of understanding Luke 11:19? If yes, could someone please explain them?

In John 8:19 (NIV), the Jews ask Jesus: >“Where is your father?” But instead of giving a direct answer to where, Jesus replies: >“You do not know me or my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” Why did Jesus respond with who (about identity/relationship) rather than answering the where they asked? Was this a deliberate redirection of their misunderstanding, or is there a deeper theological reason for this shift in focus?

Speaking from a mormon mentality. But not necessarily a member. Looking for ideas from all Christian denominations. The mormons preach in the pearl of great price, that in the pre earth life, all of humanity gathered to discuss the plan of salvation with god. Lucifer and Jesus came forward and shared their thoughts. Lucifers plan was ultimately shot down and it is said he became prideful and was cast out. Some of the other angels followed him etc etc. My question is this. If "all good things come from god" as said by mormon prophets, then how was an angel in heaven able to experience pride and turn away from god before being subject to the "natural man" state of temptation? And second, if in order for God's plan to work, Adam and eve had to partake of the apple and give into sin, then SATAN HAD TO BE PART OF THE PLAN. Therefore God orchestrated it. Which in turn makes god responsible for creating something evil right? Asking for answers from all views. Against mormonism for mormonism, whatver your thoughts are.

Is the *esse* that perfected the humanity of the Word, common to all three Persons of the Blessed Trinity or to only the Word? I ask because the divine *esse* is identical to the divine nature. And the term "divine nature" could be understood in two senses. In one sense, it refers to all three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. In another sense, it refers to a particular Person of the Blessed Trinity, which is in this case the Word. Or is it the case that it's both depending on which sense is used?

Here's a debate between Hugh Ross of "Reasons to Believe" and Ken Ham. These men are popular spokesmen for each of Old Earth and Young Earth Creationism, respectively. In the hour-long discussion, Ken repeatedly shuts down any use of passages other than Genesis to get information about the details of creation. For example, he didn't want to talk about how Job (9:8) or Psalms (104:2) speak of God "stretching the heavens" Setting aside the whole YEC/OEC debate for the moment, is there a biblical reason to limit creation-detail information to the book of Genesis?

The passage reads: > [Ephesians 5:18-21 NASB] 18 And do not get drunk with wine, in which there is debauchery, **but be filled with the Spirit**, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your hearts to the Lord; 20 always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to our God and Father; 21 and subject yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ. My modern-day interpretation of verse 18, *“And do not get drunk with wine, in which there is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,”* would be this: Instead of chasing a dopamine rush or neurochemical high through alcohol, drugs, opioids, or any other addictive behavior (whether food, sex, pornography, gambling, or the like), seek to be filled with the Spirit. The one who is filled with the Spirit experiences a holy satisfaction that immeasurably surpasses alcohol, drugs, food, sex, psychedelics, or any combination of fleshly indulgences. In other words, I see Ephesians 5:18-21 as a spiritually challenging passage because it seems to urge the Christian to pursue a deep, Spirit-filled state, a profound transformation of affections and emotions that far exceeds any earthly intoxication. I personally picture this spiritual state as vastly superior to the strongest dopamine-driven highs of substances such as alcohol, cocaine, ecstasy, methamphetamines, or any other stimulant the world offers. Furthermore, in verses 19-21 the apostle sets forth several practices. What is not immediately clear, however, is whether these should be understood as *manifestations* (that is, consequences) of being filled with the Spirit, or rather as *means* (that is, practices that foster or open the way toward being filled). With this in mind, I am seeking an **overview of Protestant interpretations** of Ephesians 5:18-21 concerning the lived Christian experience of being filled with the Spirit. In particular, I am asking: - How do Protestants compare the experience of being filled with the Spirit to indulgence in alcohol, drugs, or other dopamine-releasing behaviors? - How do Protestants understand and seek to obey Paul’s command to be filled with the Spirit? ----------- NOTE. You can read parallel commentaries by Biblical scholars on Ephesians 5:18 here: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ephesians/5-18.htm

Although the Eastern Orthodox Church does not maintain inherited guilt, as does the Roman Catholic Church, it does maintain that mankind bears the consequences of Adam’s sin, and that those consequences involve physical corruption and death. But does the Orthodox Church also maintain that man’s tendency to sin is worse post‐Fall than pre‐Fall, being inherited from Adam? Does the Eastern Orthodox Church believe that humans inherited an inward tendency to sin (sin nature) from Adam that Adam himself acquired only after the Fall? Or would the Eastern Orthodox Church believe that man’s inherent tendency to sin is roughly the same as that of Adam and Eve’s?

How did the Gift of the Holy Ghost operate before Christ came? In particular, I'm wondering how it operated among the ancient Jewish people, who only had the Aaronic priesthood, and therefore would not be able to give the gift of the holy ghost.

Two people in their 80s have fallen in love and are sexually attracted to each other. Both are widows and do not want to marry again.

1 Corinthians 8:9-13 (NIV): >Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall. It is clear that eating meat sacrificed to idols is not a sin. But it could lead other Christians to do so too, and as a result they would be destroyed? Or fall into sin? Is Paul implying that it will lead them into other sins? Or just that they will think they are sinning (when in fact they are not) and will feel bad, and we should be mindful of this? That they think that they will be destroyed (when in fact they won't be)? Why did Paul say these people have a weak conscience? Don't they have an over active conscience?

I have the 2012 edition of the New American Bible published by Catholic Bible Press. It's rather interesting in that, the Old Testament, this translation doesn't use quotation marks when God speaks, but there are quotation marks for human speech. For instance Genesis 1:3 says > Then God said: Let there be light, and there was light. whereas Exodus 3:11 reads > But Moses said to God, "Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?" The juxtaposition is especially striking in passages such as Exodus 3 wherein there is a dialogue between God and a man. As some have pointed out in comments, there are some translations that do not have quotations anywhere. But the NAB uses quotation marks for speech of humans and angels, only not for God. I'm curious what the reason for this is. In the New Testament however they do include quotation marks, for instance in John 12:28 > ...Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it and will glorify it again."

Abraham lied about his wife, and Rahab told the soldiers that the Israel spies had already left, and *yet* they seemed to be blessed. But when Ananias and Sapphira lied about the price of sold property they were executed for it by God. God even told Gideon (in Judges 7:16-22) how to deceive the Midianites, sending them fleeing for their lives. **Is it inconsistent for God to punish some of us for lying, bless others, and even instruct Gideon to deceive the Midianites?**

The verse reads (KJV): > “And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.” I understand this verse is tied to the prophecy of the Messiah being born in Bethlehem. However, the wording “**his** God” raises questions for me in the context of the Trinity. I am following Chuck Smith's Blue Letter Bible (verse by verse commentary) but he doesn’t address this phrasing. Matthew Henry's touches on it, suggesting that the Messiah “speaks with God’s authority,” referencing Matthew 7:28 (“because he was teaching them as one who had authority”). This seems related to other biblical patterns where God’s people or godly figures are “called by God’s name,” such as Daniel 1:19, Jeremiah 15:16, Jeremiah 14:9, Isaiah 43:6, and Acts 15:17. Another example is Exodus 23:21, where the angel (or Jesus, if seen as a Christophany) “carries God’s name.” I also understand that Jesus can address God as “My God” (Matthew 27:46), but in Micah, the author doesn’t seem concerned about drawing a strong distinction between the Messianic figure and God. I would greatly appreciate insight into this phrasing in Micah 5:4 — why does it say “His God”? What theological or textual reasons might explain it? Thank you in advance.

Some Christians identify as non-denominational and intentionally avoid affiliating with a specific church tradition or denomination. At the same time, Scripture speaks of the “fellowship of the Holy Spirit” (e.g., 2 Corinthians 13:14) and the unity of believers in Christ. How do non-denominational Christians understand and live out this fellowship of the Holy Spirit, given their rejection of denominational structures? Do they view fellowship as primarily spiritual and individual, or do they still see it as expressed in organized gatherings with other believers? I am particularly interested in perspectives from those who identify as non-denominational or have studied their theological approach.

I've been going to Latin Mass on and off for a while and noticed that some people have adopted as some sort of meme a habit of bowing when the priest passes by and genuflecting when the processional cross passes by. I am personally, an obstinate stubborn sort of fool who won't adopt any practice, no matter how pious, unless it is explained to me personally. (I never dipped my hand in holy water until I heard a homily about it in my teens.) So, I'd really like to know whether or not this is a good, true and beautiful practice or just some Latin LARPer accretion which I would be best to avoid. Furthermore, if it is a good thing to do for TLM, should I do this during the *Novus Ordo* Mass? Why or why not?

[Another user](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/123855) posted a link to a group calling themselves the "Voice of Elijah". On the surface, they appear to be a not-obviously-remarkable Christian group aside from frequently referring to something they call "The Apostolic Teaching", which they claim was "long since lost by the Church" but "is once again available to those with ears to hear". However, it is not at all obvious from their site what this teaching *is*. What is this teaching? Does it differ from mainstream Christianity, and if so, in what way?

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 (ESV) says: >"The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deceptions for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. **Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness**." My question is: why would God want to send a strong delusion and why would he want people who do not believe to be led further astray? In my mind it doesn't make sense for it to be about simply being condemning the unbelieving because their unbelief already discredits them from heaven, why would they need to be led further astray? Does anybody know of any hypothesis as to why God would send such a strong delusion?