Free Choice to Accept or Reject?

[makesends]

Yes. But is that really the subject? I think taking it into the causal debate is going a bit far afield. Due to the fact that @JIM can't seem to (or doesn't want to) distinguish one thing from another. His illogic that if God elects who to save and then saves them by his own power and in doing so, he must change us internally from our natural condition of being at enmity with him; and if he does that according to the way I am understanding JIM, that means that he is responsible for our sins and determines them. And by extension we have no responsibility at all and yet he punishes us for what we do anyway. It is an erroneous and illogical idea that man can only be responsible for his actions if he has free will.

What is left out of such thinking is that we owe God full and complete obedience and he owes us nothing. It is grace that he stoops down to tabernacle with us and to pull some out of the kingdom of darkness and give them to the Son.

It is grace that he causes it to rain on the parched ground, and provides food for man and animal. It is grace that we breathe.

I guess I see the causality issue as relevant to every discussion. Sorry.

To me, @JIM , as so many others, and to be honest, I, too, have the tendency, to elevate my actions as equally good or evil, and to judge God's actions according to my measure. I actually find myself thinking that MY conceptions are valid, all on their own, and my words and meanings are actually substantive. Humans call themselves "sentient" and think themselves on an intellectual level with God. And there is where the lack of meaning in our words can be visible to us. As a result of our pride there, we begin to measure God according to our conceptions and words.

God "Responsible"? What does that even mean? How can we possibly go there?; but it's only natural that once we've gone there, we begin to put his supposed 'responsibility' for my actions as mutually exclusive to my own responsibility.

Sorry. I get wound up. Stinkin' words!

Ok, I'm done. Back to the fray!

 

[fastfredy0]

Do you think he determines I will desire chocolate at least twice a day?

Yes. God knows all things. At one time you were nothing and yet He knew you will desire chocolate at least twice a day. The only way God could know that was if while you (and everything else) were nothing was if He determined you'd love chocolate.
What was the cause of your craving for chocolate? Self-determinism means you make choices independent of God and any other influences. But this is logically impossible; it is a circular answer. If there is not a determining cause for craving of chocolate, making a choice would be impossible. You choice according to your desires, your desires could not have been chosen by you as you had no basis to choose your desires.

There is no verse in the Bible that I am aware of the says you choose X or Y and said choice is uninfluenced. There are verses saying God gets His way always down to casting of a lot.

Maybe we need some definitions or specifications?

Always a good idea.

 

[fastfredy0]

be honest, I, too, have the tendency, to elevate my actions as equally good or evil, and to judge God's actions according to my measure.

Amen

I guess I see the causality issue as relevant to every discussion. Sorry.

Amen

As a result of our pride there, we begin to measure God according to our conceptions and words.

Agreed.

God "Responsible"? What does that even mean? How can we possibly go there?; but it's only natural that once we've gone there, we begin to put his supposed 'responsibility' for my actions as mutually exclusive to my own responsibility.

Responsible: having an obligation to do something
God cannot break the law because no one can assign a law to Him. He is not responsible to sin because He is not responsible to any power. God is responsible in that things occur, but not responsible morally.

My analogy is that we as youngsters played with plastic toy soldiers. We have one side win over the other. We pick the winners and villains. I favor the soldiers I chose due to the characteristics I chose to assign them and not because the plastic soldier self-determined his actions and won my favor.
God picks the winners and losers, He shares His glory with no one.

Stop agreeing with me so often.... people will catch on that we are the same person.

 

[Arial]

Yes. God knows all things. At one time you were nothing and yet He knew you will desire chocolate at least twice a day. The only way God could know that was if while you (and everything else) were nothing was if He determined you'd love chocolate.
What was the cause of your craving for chocolate? Self-determinism means you make choices independent of God and any other influences. But this is logically impossible; it is a circular answer. If there is not a determining cause for craving of chocolate, making a choice would be impossible. You choice according to your desires, your desires could not have been chosen by you as you had no basis to choose your desires.

I do not believe in self determinism. But what you say here is imo pushing the envelope way too far. It in essence is saying we are nothing, not real. It is more of a philosophical argument than a theological one.

III. Of God's Eternal Decree​

1. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: (Eph. 1:11, Rom. 11:33, Heb. 6:17, Rom. 9:15,18) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, (James 1:13,17, 1 John 1:5) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (Acts 2:23, Matt. 17:12, Acts 4:27–28, John 19:11, Prov. 16:33) (Westminster Confession of Faith)

There is no verse in the Bible that I am aware of the says you choose X or Y and said choice is uninfluenced.

And neither did I say any such thing.

 

[fastfredy0]

Just to ensure we stay on track. I am saying God is the cause of everything...every spirit and every atom ... if God ceased to exist so does everything (not that God can cease to exist)
I think you are saying things happen that God does cause to happen; that some things work independently of God. I don't recall that you have given an example yet or a scripture though I assume your WCF statement implies such a thing.

I do not believe in self determinism.

Well, if you don't believe a person determines anything save what God causes then we are in agreement. If you disagree, point to a scripture to back you up; list anything we do that God didn't cause/plan/ordain with proof. You can't prove God isn't the cause of your desire for chocolate.
I can list many verses saying God causes you to do this or that... some admittedly implicit.

It in essence is saying we are nothing, not real.

We are real. God speaks to us would be proof. Empirical evidence abounds. If you want to use an analogy and say that I believe we are like programmed robots ... that analogy fits. Prove me wrong. As @makesends points out, we see things through human understanding and the default is that we are autonomous. Since we are Christians we know that is not true. I say our existence was caused by and continues to exist due to God (Acts 17:28a For in Him we live and move and exist [that is, in Him we actually have our being] AMP ... Colossian 1:17 And He Himself existed and is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. [His is the controlling, cohesive force of the universe.] AMP)

it is more of a philosophical argument than a theological one.

Well, I have given logic to support my thesis. You have not stated a flaw in my logic. "It's a mystery" is the old standby.
You have not show me to be incorrect using scripture. I gave some scripture. I can give more, granted some are implicit:

• Romans 11:36 For from Him [all things originate] and through Him [all things live and exist] and to Him are all things [directed]. To Him be glory and honor forever! Amen. AMP
• Isaiah 45:7 The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing peace and creating disaster; I am the Lord who does all these things.
• Isaiah 54:16 “Listen carefully, I have created the smith who blows on the fire of coals And who produces a weapon for its purpose;
• And I have created the destroyer to inflict ruin." [God points out that it is He creates the destroyer and the causes (the smith, the weapon) that enable the destroyer]
• Isaiah 64:8 Yet, O Lord, You are our Father; We are the clay, and You our Potter, And we all are the work of Your hand. [the analogy is clear. I used a programmed robot and Isaiah and Paul compare us to clay to be molded to perform His purpose]
• Daniel 4:35 “All the inhabitants of the earth are regarded as nothing. But He does according to His will in the host of heaven [We humans have not input, we don't cause God to do anything]
• Proverbs 19:21 Many plans are in a man’s mind, But it is the Lord’s purpose for him that will stand (be carried out).
• Job 22:2 “Can a vigorous man be of use to God, Or a wise man be useful to himself? 3 “Is it any pleasure or joy to the Almighty that you are righteous? Or is it of benefit to Him that you make your ways perfect? Job 41:11 Who has first given to Me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heavens is Mine. [more evidence that God is the ONLY CAUSE as we can't move Him]
• Acts 17:25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, because it is He who gives to all [people] life and breath and all things [ALL THINGS would include our desires (pre-programming) which determine things like whether we like chocolate twice a day]
• the impassible God does not dispense his favor according to some irrelevant condition found in his creatures; rather, the conditions of the creature is God’s creation which He rewards. We are rewarded for what God causes us to do
• etc

1. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: (Eph. 1:11, Rom. 11:33, Heb. 6:17, Rom. 9:15,18) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, (James 1:13,17, 1 John 1:5) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (Acts 2:23, Matt. 17:12, Acts 4:27–28, John 19:11, Prov. 16:33) (Westminster Confession of Faith)

Define the term "Author of Sin" and Second Causes ...I don't think the WCF gives definitions)

• Isaiah 54:16 “Listen carefully, I have created the smith who blows on the fire of coals And who produces a weapon for its purpose; And I have created the destroyer to inflict ruin." Here is examples of second causes and God causes them all. Like, I can hold a board to a wall with a nail and hammer and the nail and hammer are second causes but I control them all and God is the cause of me controlling them.

Re: God never tempts people to sin (James 1:13)
this would seem to contradict Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the [Holy] Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
Subject for another day.

 

[makesends]

Amen

Amen

Agreed.

Stop agreeing with me so often.... people will catch on that we are the same person.

Man, shut up! People will talk and then I'll have to put you back into that ugly dark footlocker again. You wouldn't like that, now, would you?

 

[makesends]

I think you are saying things happen that God does cause to happen; that some things work independently of God. I don't recall that you have given an example yet or a scripture though I assume your WCF statement implies such a thing.

I have begun to think it is the rule rather than the exception that Calvinists/Reformed think that there can actually be uncaused effects, from the way they seem to take the WCF to say so. But I don't see that said, at least in Chapter 3.1 Of God's Eternal Decree

 

[makesends]

I do not believe in self determinism. But what you say here is imo pushing the envelope way too far. It in essence is saying we are nothing, not real. It is more of a philosophical argument than a theological one.

Philosophical arguments are generally intended to be logical, (even if sometimes they are inferring rather than drawing implications from fact.)

But regardless, how far off is it to say we are nothing, apart from God? This whole temporal reality, (and my proof that it is reality is by the fact that our Lord really did live here and die for our sin—it was not an illusion), is described in scripture as a vapor in comparison with what is to come. But yes, vapor though it be, it is real vapor, full of vanity.

 

[fastfredy0]

I have begun to think it is the rule rather than the exception that Calvinists/Reformed think that there can actually be uncaused effects, from the way they seem to take the WCF to say so. But I don't see that said, at least in Chapter 3.1 Of God's Eternal Decree

WCF 3.1 struggles with the idea of God's sovereignty and there being "bad stuff" in the world.

Calvinists shy away from 'free will' (self determination) until the touchy subject of the existence of evil in the world and then they implicitly tend to become 'free will' believers.

Again.. I would like the WCF to define "Author of Sin" and "secondary causes".

 

[Arial]

Just to ensure we stay on track. I am saying God is the cause of everything...every spirit and every atom ... if God ceased to exist so does everything (not that God can cease to exist)

Yes, everything that exists as creation does so because God created it and everything that sustains it. If for one single nanosecond and less, he was not faithful to uphold it, it would cease to exist. Does that translate, to return to my original analogy, into he made me desire chocolate? Or does it translate into he made me a creature with desires who follows those desires?

This may seem to be going off the present topic, but I believe it is critical to it. We were created as mortal. We did not have to die but we could die. We were not created corrupt or corrupted but able to be corrupted. The object and content of what would corrupt man and doom him to death was placed in the Garden by God. And that was a knowledge of something that man was not created with. Evil. When Adam disobeyed all mankind became the holder of two types of knowledge. Not just what was good but also what was evil. And he began to make his choices according to desires he did not have before. Some good and some evil, some neutral. (Like a desire for chocolate.)

And here we need to turn our attention to the big picture. What is God doing in all of this? He is destroying evil from our home once and for all through Christ and creating a new world and a new man, both immortal and incorruptible. The covenant of redemption begun in Gen 3. So to be sure God is governing everything, even our sin and sinful choices, to arrive at this final victory. But he is not making us sin and he is not making us desire sin. He is not making me have a desire for chocolate but he did make me a being who is capable of desiring chocolate, which btw is not a sin. It is good.

I think you are saying things happen that God does cause to happen; that some things work independently of God.

No, I am not saying that, if you meant to say things that God doesn't cause to happen. But I am saying God created us a particular type of creature. The primary one being that we were made in his image and likeness, and given the responsibility and ability to be "vassal king" over the home---earth---he created for us. As such we had a moral responsibility and are a moral agent. We have a will that freely makes choices, according to our desires. (And that is not the same thing as a will that is totally free.) We are real humans, not wooden puppets on a string, and behave as humans. (And I say that because your previous post which prompted my question about me and and a desire for chocolate, and the one following which said yes he did determine that I would desire chocolate and its explanation, can only present humanity as puppets with their every move moved by God. And the only conclusion that can be reached by the opposition to Reformed theology)

Now I suppose there is something in your mind that is true but extremely difficult to put into words, at least without writing a book, that makes that not what you are saying, because I am quite sure you do not believe we are puppets. But, imo it is the natural result of purely philosophical logic and reasoning @makesends in theology. The pool of thought is contradictory and vast and eventually circular. I am not knocking the practice of doing it but it can lead to more confusion than fruit, at least for me. (I get a metaphorical headache trying to follow it!

 

[Arial]

Well, if you don't believe a person determines anything save what God causes then we are in agreement.

Maybe you do think we are robots? What is the point in that case? Man is a sinful creature since Gen 3. He is going to do sinful things. And this war that is going on since the seed of the woman would crush the serpents head was promised, which is a war between Satan and God, is being carried out through sinful people. God wins this war through the person and work of Christ taking people out of Adam and placing them in Christ. God determined that sin would enter the world in order to eradicate it from the world and again have a people who he will dwell with.

What he did not determine was every particular sin man would create but he governed it and used it to his ultimate purposes. Just as he determined that his Son would be taken by sinful men and crucified---Christ's victory was in his death----but God did not make them crucify Jesus. Man being what man has become, wanted to crucify him. Satan wanted him crucified because he thought that was the end of the matter. And the men who did so were following their father the devil. Was the original cause of his being crucified God? Absolutely. Did God cause the sin? No. Corrupted men did. You might even in a sense say Adam did.

If you disagree, point to a scripture to back you up; list anything we do that God didn't cause/plan/ordain with proof. You can't prove God isn't the cause of your desire for chocolate.
I can list many verses saying God causes you to do this or that... some admittedly implicit.

Well, a person cannot prove a negative which is what you have asked me to do. To say that God is the first cause of my desire for chocolate does not equal that he caused me to desire chocolate. It is only possible for me to desire chocolate because he is the first cause of me---a being with desires. And neither does God being the first cause---period---equal God directly causing me to desire chocolate. Some people hate it you know, which I cannot understand, so did God cause them to hate it or did he cause them to be a being who is capable of hating it?

I must take a break. More later.

 

[fastfredy0]

Does that translate, to return to my original analogy, into he made me desire chocolate? Or does it translate into he made me a creature with desires who follows those desires?

Sounds like the same thing said in slightly different way. I am not sure I see the subtle difference.
My view is God gives you the desire and sustains the desire.
Deist view as I understand it: God gives you the desire and even if God ceased to exist you and you desire would continue to operate and possibly change according to scientific laws.

We were created as mortal. We did not have to die but we could die. We were not created corrupt or corrupted but able to be corrupted.

Agreed ... by definition any created thing is susceptible to change as it was changed from nothing to something. God can ensure change does not happen.

The object and content of what would corrupt man and doom him to death was placed in the Garden by God. And that was a knowledge of something that man was not created with. Evil. When Adam disobeyed all mankind became the holder of two types of knowledge. Not just what was good but also what was evil. And he began to make his choices according to desires he did not have before. Some good and some evil, some neutral. (Like a desire for chocolate.)

Agreed. (side bar: the knowledge of what is evil can exist in a non-corrupted being (i.e. non fallen angels)

And here we need to turn our attention to the big picture. What is God doing in all of this? He is destroying evil from our home once and for all through Christ and creating a new world and a new man, both immortal and incorruptible. The covenant of redemption begun in Gen 3. So to be sure God is governing everything, even our sin and sinful choices, to arrive at this final victory.

Agreed

But he is not making us sin and he is not making us desire sin.

I don't agree. God makes the rules and He determined that everyone after Adam and Eve would have a 'sin nature' which is a desire to sin.
God also created Adam knowing Adam would sin. God could have created an Adam that He knew would now sin as He has to with the unfallen angels.
Regarding "making us sin" ... there are examples in the Bible where God initiates actions that cause people to sin. Example:

• 1 Samuel 18:10 Now it came about on the next day that an evil spirit from God came forcefully on Saul, and he raved [madly] inside his house, while David was playing the harp with his hand, as usual; and there was a spear in Saul’s hand. 11 Saul hurled the spear, for he thought, “I will pin David to the wall.” But David evaded him twice.
• 1 Samuel 19:9 Then an evil spirit from the Lord came on Saul as he was sitting in his house with his spear in his hand, and David was playing the harp with his hand.

Like, if a hire a hit man to take out a person I don't like, am I not the one who makes the hit man sin ...now one can hide behind 'second causes' and say it was the hit man's nature that caused him to sin and I am not associated with said sin because in the end it was up to the hit man.

We have a will that freely makes choices, according to our desires. (And that is not the same thing as a will that is totally free.)

Agreed. But digging deeper .... who created our desires? If our desires come from God (like giving us a sin nature do to Adam) then I am not free from God's plan in any sense.

We are real humans, not wooden puppets on a string, and behave as humans.

Obviously, we are humans but why does the analogy of comparing us to puppets on a string not hold? Where in scripture does it say a person can do something independent of God. If we can do nothing independently from God then the analogy of us being puppets on a string holds. Again, at one time we were nothing and not even God knows what nothing will do so for Him to know all future things He must cause them to happen; He must 'pull the strings'.

And the only conclusion that can be reached by the opposition to Reformed theology

Aside: This is an argument using the fallacy of authority (if I recall the logic book I once read) Only God and scripture as originally written are perfect. I grant main stream Reformed theology disagrees with my stance.

Now I suppose there is something in your mind that is true

You should tell my wife that. *giggle*

because I am quite sure you do not believe we are puppets.

I think the analogy of "puppets" or "robots" is a good one. What is the problem for us to be robots and puppets. Would it mean that the Christian faith is false, or would it contradict the Christian faith? God has infinitely more control over us than we have over robots and puppets. It would be erroneous to think that we have more freedom relative to God than robots and puppets have relative to us.

But, imo it is the natural result of purely philosophical logic .... The pool of thought is contradictory and vast and eventually circular. I am not knocking the practice of doing it but it can lead to more confusion than fruit, at least for me. (I get a metaphorical headache trying to follow it!

I am not a philosophy type person. I do like logic. I like to be able to prove things and logic can do that at times.
If all men wear hats and Jack is a man ... if the premises are true I can figure out that Jack wears a hat.
If from nothing nothing comes and God has always know all things then He must cause all things to happen if the premises are true.

Again, you have not given a scripture saying people are not controlled by God or do anything as ordinary as picking up the salt or pepper first that God has not determined/caused you to do.

... if this is WRESTLING then I virtually slap @makesends hand to let him take over. (giggle) Two against one seems fair to me.

 

[Arial]

We are real. God speaks to us would be proof. Empirical evidence abounds. If you want to use an analogy and say that I believe we are like programmed robots ... that analogy fits. Prove me wrong. As @makesends points out, we see things through human understanding and the default is that we are autonomous. Since we are Christians we know that is not true. I say our existence was caused by and continues to exist due to God (Acts 17:28a For in Him we live and move and exist [that is, in Him we actually have our being] AMP ... Colossian 1:17 And He Himself existed and is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. [His is the controlling, cohesive force of the universe.] AMP)

No analogy fits. Certainly not that we are preprogrammed robots. Robots aren't real humans beings. If it is true that we are nothing but programmed robots, the evil in the world, redemption of the world through Jesus becoming one of us and dying in our place, the entire war that has been waging since Gen 3, is a bit of a sham. This is the problem when we try to go beyond what is given and explore the mind and person of God in human, horizontal language. It all sounds right and may contain elements of truth, but in our language it eventually falls apart, or states things like we are pre-programmed robots.

The opposite of pre-prorammed robots is not autonomy, no matter what anyone may think. It is not one thing or the other. Our existence was caused by and we continue to exist due to God. That does not mean that we are preprogrammed to sin. God did not make Adam sin, he made him able to sin and intended that he would so that sin and death could be destroyed from our home and us. We know this because he gives us the whole story of redemption. It's beginning and its end. It is as one author said in the debate, it is most closely akin to the analogy that it is a writer writing a novel. They do not make their characters do something, they make them doing it. There is absolutely no need or reason to speculate or announce that God ordained that someone would like chocolate and someone wouldn't like chocolate. We make choices according to our desires. Some of them are good and some of them are bad and none of them redeem us, and all of them condemn us because the good and bad are mixed together.

Christ, by grace and through faith, redeems us from the power of those sinful desires to condemn us, as he gathers his people from the court corners of the world, to bring in the new creature dwelling in the new creation.

 

[Arial]

Sounds like the same thing said in slightly different way. I am not sure I see the subtle difference.

It is a big difference not a subtle one. The first is a robot who has no desires and makes no choices. The second is a human being.

Gotta go for now.

 

[makesends]

WCF 3.1 struggles with the idea of God's sovereignty and there being "bad stuff" in the world.

Calvinists shy away from 'free will' (self determination) until the touchy subject of the existence of evil in the world and then they implicitly tend to become 'free will' believers.

Again.. I would like the WCF to define "Author of Sin" and "secondary causes".

Actually, I love the wording of the WCF there, though it is a bit easy to misuse it. But it is one of those cases of, "the less words, the better".

The part that made me a fan was when it clinches (but still a bit ambiguous) the fact that (as I take it) whatever man takes for free choices and contingencies are ESTABLISHED by God, which to me affirms exactly what I believe is logically necessary if God is First Cause. Nothing —not our choosing and not our choices, nor the events/facts upon which other things depend on for their becoming fact— can even BE, but for God establishing them.

You've seen me, and you and most members here affirm, that we are not just weak factually —i.e. not just morally— but unable to bring to pass that to which we commit, apart from God's doing. We can plan tomorrow, but it is not of us, but of the creator, to bring it to pass. Our "cooperation" in the matter is a vapor. Then, when you add morality to the mix, where the 'old man' is in constant rebellion, and our natural tendency is AWAY from God, such a decision as, for eg, repentance, is worthless, apart from God establishing it.

Wishthink about things we do not control nor understand, is like asking the wrong question of God. Oh, Lord, "help my disbelief".

 

[makesends]

fastfredy0 said:
Well, if you don't believe a person determines anything save what God causes then we are in agreement.

Maybe you do think we are robots? What is the point in that case? Man is a sinful creature since Gen 3. He is going to do sinful things. And this war that is going on since the seed of the woman would crush the serpents head was promised, which is a war between Satan and God, is being carried out through sinful people. God wins this war through the person and work of Christ taking people out of Adam and placing them in Christ. God determined that sin would enter the world in order to eradicate it from the world and again have a people who he will dwell with.

What he did not determine was every particular sin man would create but he governed it and used it to his ultimate purposes. Just as he determined that his Son would be taken by sinful men and crucified---Christ's victory was in his death----but God did not make them crucify Jesus. Man being what man has become, wanted to crucify him. Satan wanted him crucified because he thought that was the end of the matter. And the men who did so were following their father the devil. Was the original cause of his being crucified God? Absolutely. Did God cause the sin? No. Corrupted men did. You might even in a sense say Adam did.

fastfredy0 said:
If you disagree, point to a scripture to back you up; list anything we do that God didn't cause/plan/ordain with proof. You can't prove God isn't the cause of your desire for chocolate.
I can list many verses saying God causes you to do this or that... some admittedly implicit.

Well, a person cannot prove a negative which is what you have asked me to do. To say that God is the first cause of my desire for chocolate does not equal that he caused me to desire chocolate. It is only possible for me to desire chocolate because he is the first cause of me---a being with desires. And neither does God being the first cause---period---equal God directly causing me to desire chocolate. Some people hate it you know, which I cannot understand, so did God cause them to hate it or did he cause them to be a being who is capable of hating it?

I'm thinking there is the overall fact that we temporal creatures consistently miss, that is, how far above us God is. Consider how it seems to the Arminian/Pelagian/Self-determinist that there is no reconciling the notion of God being absolutely sovereign as consisten with free will of the creature, without fancy 'logical' footwork and sloughing of meanings of terms.

I have, more often than I care to do, resorted to telling them to take their whole mental construction as is, put it in an envelope or mathematical/logical 'set', and put words on the envelope (make the set a mere subset within the larger set), "God did it". No matter where our thoughts take us, there is no escaping the fact of God's causality.

God is that much above us, and his reality that much above our temporal 'reality' that the logic of causality has no leaks, yet our choices have responsibility. We elevate ourselves to any consideration of unfairness on God's part, or robothood of the creation, or some-magical-how sentient will that is independent of God's causing, to say that God did not cause this or that, (or in the human vernacular, "choose" this or that). Paul's use of "who are you, oh man...?" is not just a pompous shouting down of noisy, pesky, tiny fireants. It is a logical argument, against any ability on our part to operate in God's bailiwick.

 

[Arial]

Well, I have given logic to support my thesis. You have not stated a flaw in my logic. "It's a mystery" is the old standby.
You have not show me to be incorrect using scripture. I gave some scripture. I can give more, granted some are implicit:

Surely you acknowledge that there are things about God that are a mystery? And that is not ignorant to recognize a mystery when one comes across it? The infinite is beyond our finite logic. Which is not to say that the infinite is illogical, it is just beyond our capacities. So I will point out the flaws wherever I can. Keeping in mind your premise of programmed robots as an analogy of humanity.

Romans 11:36 For from Him [all things originate] and through Him [all things live and exist] and to Him are all things [directed]. To Him be glory and honor forever! Amen. AMP

That does not say that our every desire is programmed by God. It means there is one creator of all things and nothing exists unless he brings it into existence, and that is God. When the Amplified interprets "and to Him are all things (directed), it adds to what is not there by interpreting it as an interpretive idea. "And for Him" is more accurate and many translations translate it that way. "To Him" is all glory and honor. All things are for him. The Deliverer who comes from Zion---Christ. It is his creation it is for him.

Isaiah 45:7 The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing peace and creating disaster; I am the Lord who does all these things.

Certainly he does. What does that have to do with him preprogramming the choices and desires of robots and calling them humans?

• Isaiah 54:16 “Listen carefully, I have created the smith who blows on the fire of coals And who produces a weapon for its purpose;
• And I have created the destroyer to inflict ruin." [God points out that it is He creates the destroyer and the causes (the smith, the weapon) that enable the destroyer]

Nothing is created that he did not create. But you kind of conflate pre fall creation with post fall creation. And he uses everything for his purpose. But that does not prove that he pre-programs our every desire down to whether or not we like chocolate. These passages are stating his sovereignty and his governance.

There is no point in going through them all one by one making the post too long. It is enough to say that none of them serve as proof that all our picayune desires are preprogrammed and therefore so are our choices. They prove that God is Sovereign and does as he pleases with who he pleases, even using their sin and sinfulness to do so.

Define the term "Author of Sin" and Second Causes ...I don't think the WCF gives definitions)

God is not the cause of sin. He does not create sin (it is not a creation. It is anything short of God's holiness.) Second causes would be God intended Christ to go to the cross but the second cause of his going there was the evil intent of the hearts of men.

 

[ChristB4us]

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her,"I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

Is it possible to believe something and reject it at the same time?

That verse being about when He has ascended after His resurrection for whenever anyone believes in Him to be saved for when that born again of the Spirit moment of salvation was to occur, does not apply to that comment above nor the scenario you posted next below.

OK. Let's look a bit farther in John 11 and see what it was that Martha believed. These passages of course, are in connection with the death of Martha's brother Lazarus, Jesus had been told that his friend was sick, and Jesus had told them that the illness would not lead to death, and he delayed going to him for two days. He then told his disciples that Lazarus had fallen asleep and he was going to awaken him. They thought he meant taking rest and would therefore recover. So he told them plainly that no, he had died, and he said a curious thing, "Lazarus has died, and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him."

When he arrived, he found that Lazarus had been in the tomb four days. Martha ran to meet him and said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you." Jesus replied, "Your brother will rise again," Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day."

Those Jews of the day who followed the teachings of the Pharisees did believe in the resurrection of the dead, so this statement of Martha is in agreement with that teaching, not a statement about Jesus. And Jesus promptly identifies something much deeper. "I am the resurrection and life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet he shall live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

Martha's answer, "Yes, Lord; I believe you are the Christ, the Son of God who is coming into the world." It was as tough a light went on and all the Messianic prophecies that she would have been familiar with, coalesced in the man standing before her. She calls him Lord. She understood. She believed.

So I ask again: Is it possible to believe what Martha believed and simultaneously reject it---not believe it?

It does not apply because the belief Jesus was asking for was in regards to what He will do while being with them on earth as in expecting that miracle that Lazarus will be raised from the dead.

Another example for something He is asking a father for is believing in His ability to cast out demons out of his son.

Mark 9:20 And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming. 21 And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child. 22 And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us. 23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

So your comment "Is it possible to believe what Martha believed and simultaneously reject it---not believe it?" may be a skewed if you are wondering from Martha's point of view right in that moment. I believe Martha believed what Jesus has said but I believe she was thinking of that future resurrection rather than that even imagining Jesus was going to raise Lazarus from the dead at that time.

 

[Arial]

I don't agree. God makes the rules and He determined that everyone after Adam and Eve would have a 'sin nature' which is a desire to sin.
God also created Adam knowing Adam would sin. God could have created an Adam that He knew would now sin as He has to with the unfallen angels.

Every time I have brought up federal headship in Adam, and suggested that if there were no such thing designed by God, there would be no way of redemption but instead the redemption of anyone would be utter chaos (which cannot be in God) I always get a huh? How so? This is among those who deny any such concept as federal headship.

So this goes back to not who authors sin but to what God is doing, has done, and will do. And we know all of these things because he has given us the book that tells us. He is going to send another federal head, the federal head of the redeemed, to do away with sin and death and all evil once and for all. They were all active before creation (death maybe being the exception as Satan was still alive, but will die.) We know sin was alive because Satan sinned. Perhaps he is the author of sin. Author being the key word, not creator of. And a third of the angels fell with Satan. Our fall was not the first fall. As we see God working through our history with heads and chiefs---representatives of the whole just as Adam was---it may be safe to assume that Satan was chief among the angels.

Even they were created good. Good being defined by the very character of God and anything less than that as sin.

The only way to redeem creation and certainly our world that God created for mankind was for the first woman to be deceived by the serpent and for Adam to openly rebel against his Master and Creator. And it had to be done by a being made in God's image and likeness, that is morally good, but who also had a will as God does. So yes, God intended Adam to sin and all mankind with him, and being the type of creature that he is, one who has a will and therefore makes choices, be given the opportunity to sin via the tree.

What you seem to be saying is that Adam really had no will of his own at all. And neither do the rest of us. What you seem to be saying is the very thing Reformed theology is accused of teaching, and the Bible does not teach. If God programs all the evil choices we make into us, then we cannot be a responsible creature, a moral agent, or culpable for our sins.

Remember: "What you meant for evil God meant for good." Joseph told his brothers. God controlled that entire situation to achieve his redemptive purposes, but Joseph's brothers did exactly what their own evil hearts desired. Did it happen because God ordained that it would? Absolutely. God always gains the victory over our desires, he does not give us evil desires. They come quite naturally because we are fallen humans.

Now, we may be splitting hairs here. I actually see your point and can give credibility to it to a large degree. I just think it goes beyond our boundaries and therefore cannot be stated accurately and isn't.

 

[makesends]

Agreed. (side bar: the knowledge of what is evil can exist in a non-corrupted being (i.e. non fallen angels)

Just a note: I'm not sure that is the right word, "knowledge", there. Recognition of it, certainly, but I'm not even sure their knowledge even reaches the level of the knowledge of the ungodly concerning God in Romans 1.

Being thus the self-ordained, ...er, self-appointed, ...er, I decided to play the role, here, of, moderator and not just audience, I award the point to @Arial.