Free Choice to Accept or Reject?

[Arial]

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.

Yay for me!!!

 

[fastfredy0]

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.

Granted, we can't understand God at His level and all our efforts to describe His ways fall short to some degree. That being said, the function of an analogy is to describe a partial similarity. All analogies fall short to some degree. My point of the analogy is the God controls EVERYTHING like a man controls a puppet. Now you can call my idea a sham, but you have yet to get scripture to show that man and anything does anything independent of God. My thesis gives God all the Glory for everything done, yours does not. When is comes to evil Job asked of such things and God answered:
Job 38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,
2 “Who is this that darkens counsel [questioning my authority and wisdom]
By words without knowledge?
3 “Now [a]gird up your loins like a man,
And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you know and have understanding.
5 “Who determined the measurements [of the earth], if you know?
Or who stretched the [measuring] line on it?
6 “On what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,

That does not mean that we are preprogrammed to sin.

What is the source of our 'sin nature'? Did you chose your desires and if so what was the basis of your 'free' choice?

God did not make Adam sin, he made him able to sin and intended that he would

Agreed. The die was set. Adam was destined to sin by the Almighty. Adam did not create his desires, the Creator did.

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.

God is like a writer writing a story. The characters act precisely according to the author; yet the author is not held accountable for the acts of his characters; rather, the author gets credit for the story. Like the Potter and the clay ... the Potter can do as He pleases, it's His right. Jacob I loved and Esau I hated ... before they were born the script was written.

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.

Agreed, and God determines our desires. You don't get to chose your desires. You follow the script of the author.

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.

Agreed. God also creates the reprobate to be passed by. All follow the script according to the desires God gave them.
Praise God.

 

[Arial]

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.

I have to add a bit here for clarity. If Satan was the chief angel he was not a head in the same sense that Adam was or Jesus, because it did not denote all angels as fallen. So head there, if that is the case, would be a position and station. Angels can and did fall from the station or mission that God created them for, and they were cast out of heaven and bound in chains. Which also suggests one of two things. Either Satan is not an angel and perhaps a unique being, or if we look at Rev where we see Satan bound for a time from deceiving the nations, it is the same type of partial binding. In any case, whatever Satan was created for and to do, he rebelled against it and was cast out.

Adam too left his station and mission as caretaker of creation and was cast out. But mankind still has the same mission and responsibility over God's creation as he was given in the beginning. All creation was subjected to futility due to our abrogating and misusing that moral responsibility. But good news. Jesus is putting his creation to rights, through mankind and man in it. The grace and mercy is astounding.

 

[fastfredy0]

Surely you acknowledge that there are things about God that are a mystery?

Of course, but it does follow that ALL things are a mystery. God is sovereign, all things go according to His plan.
Since even God cannot know what nothing will do and yet knows all things the mystery is solve IMO. God causes all things. This is in alignment with the Law of Causality (every effect has a cause... God is not effected by anything as He is eternal and immutable). Nothing can happen outside of God causing it for then He would be EFFECTED and would change as He considered the cause outside of Himself.

The infinite is beyond our finite logic. Which is not to say that the infinite is illogical, it is just beyond our capacities.

Aside: Technically, God cannot count to infinity. Idea for another day *giggle* The concept of infinity is not illogical though logic
is what one would use to say God cannot count to the end of the number system.
Aside2: Oh, bought some Bitcoin today *giggle*

Re: 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.

Premise 1: ALL THINGS means everything without exception (you said yourself: "nothing exists unless he brings it into existence")
Premise 2: Our desires are a 'thing'
Conclusion: the verse says God created our desires. (I've asked several times that if you disagree please state how your desires were formed)


Re; 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?

Our choices and desires are a subset of the God's creation of light and darkness where "light and darkness" are analogies for "good and lack of good".

. 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.

Well, I am giving evidence the God does preprogram every desire. You're welcome to list verses saying the contrary. With an infinite number of created things it would be highly impractical to list them all in scripture. We can deduce that when God is the creator of ALL things the our desires are included.

 

[fastfredy0]

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.

I am saying Adam had a will the was programmed (created by) God as God creates ALL things. Adam did not create his own will. From nothing nothing comes.

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.

Definition of Responsibility: having an obligation to do something
God makes the rules and everyone is responsible to obey them even if it is impossible to obey. Example: God says "do not sin" and we will be held responsible if we sin. It is impossible to not sin, yet we are held responsible. Romans 11 "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all" is a verse from the Bible,

Consider:
Those who see that it is impossible to disassociate God from the origination and continuation of evil still attempt to distance God from evil by suggesting that God merely "permits" evil, and that he does not cause it. However, since the Bible itself states that God actively decrees and causes everything (Men Controlled by God Scripture Verses), and that nothing can exist or happen apart from his will and power, it makes no sense to say that he merely permits something – nothing happens by God's mere permission. In fact, when it comes to ontology, "God's permission" is an unintelligible term. Since "in him we live and move and have our being" (see preservation, Acts 17:28, Colossians 1:17, Hebrews 1:3, Romans 11:36 , Job 34:14-15, John 1:3), from an ontological or metaphysical perspective, it is impossible to do anything at all without God's active power and control. Without him, a person cannot think or move. How, then, can evil be devised and committed without God's deliberate causation? How can one think evil apart from God's purpose and power? Instead of protecting God from the verdict of an unrighteous and irrational human standard while agreeing with this same standard, we ought to attack this human standard and refuse to let it stand in judgment over God, but instead agree with the Bible that God has decreed and caused evil, and that he is righteous in doing so.

David's census of Israel provides an example of evil that God decreed and caused in his creatures:

• 2 Samuel 24:1 Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."
• 1 Chronicles 21:1 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.

These two verses refer to the same incident. There is no contradiction if our view is true. God decreed that David would sin by taking the census, and he caused Satan to perform the temptation. Satan himself is a creature and has no free will. All his thoughts, decisions, and actions are controlled and caused by God. Then, God punished David for committing this sin (2 Samuel 24:10-14). Vincent Cheung

Remember: "What you meant for evil God meant for good." J

Agreed. In no way is God's control of evil cast him in a bad light. Only God is good. The potter and the clay. Only God has intrinsic value ... His creation is for His glory and pleasure, not ours.

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.

I figure God will be "ticked" at us for discussing this matter as He was with Job.
Aside: no dark, thunder laden clouds where I am, how 'bout you?

I'll give you the last word, I'm out of ammo. @makesends, you take over ...

 

[Arial]

Now you can call my idea a sham, but you have yet to get scripture to show that man and anything does anything independent of God.

I never said we did anything independent of God, and I don't think we do, so maybe you should describe what you mean by independent of God.

My thesis gives God all the Glory for everything done, yours does not.

Maybe you should say the way you understand my thesis compared to yours does not give God the glory for everything done. Certainly in my eyes it does.

When is comes to evil Job asked of such things and God answered:

Job all the way through gave God the glory. He was accusing God of being unfair in afflicting him, and he (Job) wasn't even given a chance to defend himself. Job's friends had been condemning Job as receiving just punishment (and we know from the first chapter that is not what was going on.) And Job was complaining. So what you quote is God telling Job and his friends that he is sovereign creator, he owns the whole world, and the whole world does his bidding. Even the snow and the rain and the ice. What it does not say is that God gives us our sinful desires.

What is the source of our 'sin nature'? Did you chose your desires and if so what was the basis of your 'free' choice?

Adam.
Desires are not something we choose, they are something we have. I like chocolate because it tastes good to me. That is why I desire it. I keep repeating the analogy of my first question to keep this conversation at the level of determinism that you present.

Agreed. The die was set. Adam was destined to sin by the Almighty. Adam did not create his desires, the Creator did.

A desire is not a creation either. The serpent deceived Eve and she desired what he was offering. She actually probably thought it would be a good thing. It was Adam who then desired to please his wife rather than obey God. There is no sin in desiring to please your wife. It was that he considered disobey his creator as a small thing and the pleasure of his wife the greater thing. He topsy turvyed the created order.

God is like a writer writing a story. The characters act precisely according to the author; yet the author is not held accountable for the acts of his characters; rather, the author gets credit for the story. Like the Potter and the clay ... the Potter can do as He pleases, it's His right. Jacob I loved and Esau I hated ... before they were born the script was written.

The potter and the clay has to do with the elect and non elect. Vessels of wrath and vessels of glory. And you missed the thrust of of the writer not making the characters do things but makes them doing things. It is not an analogy of God but of the level and means of determinism. I believe it is called theological determinism as opposed to what I think you present being hard determinism. I could be wrong on that. It has been awhile since I looked into it and like said----dizzy with the circle.

Agreed, and God determines our desires. You don't get to chose your desires. You follow the script of the author.

The only way to understand this is that it is saying God gives us evil desires. I would think that he would have to have them himself before he could give them to us.

Agreed. God also creates the reprobate to be passed by. All follow the script according to the desires God gave them.
Praise God.

Then it is God who is responsible not us. So unless you rethink this you will make every argument for the opponent in a debate that accuses Reformed theology of making God unjust for making us sin and giving us no choice or recourse and then punishing us for what he did to us. You have done such a good job of doing that in this debate that I dread to even consider trying to untangle it. I fully concede that it is possible you do not mean what it sounds like you mean, but I do not know how to undo it.

 

[Arial]

I am saying Adam had a will the was programmed (created by) God as God creates ALL things. Adam did not create his own will. From nothing nothing comes.


Definition of Responsibility: having an obligation to do something
God makes the rules and everyone is responsible to obey them even if it is impossible to obey. Example: God says "do not sin" and we will be held responsible if we sin. It is impossible to not sin, yet we are held responsible. Romans 11 "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all" is a verse from the Bible,

Consider:
Those who see that it is impossible to disassociate God from the origination and continuation of evil still attempt to distance God from evil by suggesting that God merely "permits" evil, and that he does not cause it. However, since the Bible itself states that God actively decrees and causes everything (Men Controlled by God Scripture Verses), and that nothing can exist or happen apart from his will and power, it makes no sense to say that he merely permits something – nothing happens by God's mere permission. In fact, when it comes to ontology, "God's permission" is an unintelligible term. Since "in him we live and move and have our being" (see preservation, Acts 17:28, Colossians 1:17, Hebrews 1:3, Romans 11:36 , Job 34:14-15, John 1:3), from an ontological or metaphysical perspective, it is impossible to do anything at all without God's active power and control. Without him, a person cannot think or move. How, then, can evil be devised and committed without God's deliberate causation? How can one think evil apart from God's purpose and power? Instead of protecting God from the verdict of an unrighteous and irrational human standard while agreeing with this same standard, we ought to attack this human standard and refuse to let it stand in judgment over God, but instead agree with the Bible that God has decreed and caused evil, and that he is righteous in doing so.

David's census of Israel provides an example of evil that God decreed and caused in his creatures:

• 2 Samuel 24:1 Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."
• 1 Chronicles 21:1 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.

These two verses refer to the same incident. There is no contradiction if our view is true. God decreed that David would sin by taking the census, and he caused Satan to perform the temptation. Satan himself is a creature and has no free will. All his thoughts, decisions, and actions are controlled and caused by God. Then, God punished David for committing this sin (2 Samuel 24:10-14). Vincent Cheung



Agreed. In no way is God's control of evil cast him in a bad light. Only God is good. The potter and the clay. Only God has intrinsic value ... His creation is for His glory and pleasure, not ours.



I figure God will be "ticked" at us for discussing this matter as He was with Job.
Aside: no dark, thunder laden clouds where I am, how 'bout you?

I'll give you the last word, I'm out of ammo. @makesends, you take over ...

My headache is about to become real. And I am dizzy. Around and around we go. I'm done.

 

[Arial]

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.

Then why did he tell Martha that is who he is----not what he will do or what will happen to him later----but who he is. The resurrection and the life? And why did he ask her if she believed that is who he is? And why did he ask her before she even knew he would be crucified.

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.

Martha didn't know he was going to raise her brother and Jesus did not tell her he was. He asked her if she believed he was the resurrection and the life. He didn't say he was going to do anything. He said "I am the resurrection and the life when she acknowledged that there would be a resurrection dead according to Jewish belief in the sect of the Pharisees. He said that is who he is. His person. Resurrection. Life.

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.

Two different things. Don't conflate. Correctly handle the word of God.

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.

You have contradicted a previous statement here. It does not really matter what you think Martha was thinking. The question is not skewed and it is also not answered.

 

[makesends]

Of course, but it does follow that ALL things are a mystery. God is sovereign, all things go according to His plan.
Since even God cannot know what nothing will do and yet knows all things the mystery is solve IMO. God causes all things. This is in alignment with the Law of Causality (every effect has a cause... God is not effected by anything as He is eternal and immutable). Nothing can happen outside of God causing it for then He would be EFFECTED and would change as He considered the cause outside of Himself.

The self-determinist's claims can accommodate this. They would claim that uncaused choosing is [by definition] not an effect. (How choosing can be uncaused is still beyond me to see, but...)

 

[makesends]

fastfredy0 said:
Agreed. God also creates the reprobate to be passed by. All follow the script according to the desires God gave them.
Praise God.

Then it is God who is responsible not us. So unless you rethink this you will make every argument for the opponent in a debate that accuses Reformed theology of making God unjust for making us sin and giving us no choice or recourse and then punishing us for what he did to us. You have done such a good job of doing that in this debate that I dread to even consider trying to untangle it. I fully concede that it is possible you do not mean what it sounds like you mean, but I do not know how to undo it.

Does God NOT create the reprobate "to be passed by"? That is, of course, far from the whole story, but that is definitely the position of the reprobate by definition. I think a little faith in God's goodness is due here. Not our defining God's goodness, but our counting on it, that nobody will receive worse than is their due. Our Hamartiology and Soteriology depends on what God is and does, and not on how well we build our Doctrine of God. We have no right, nor even ability, to judge God, nor to justify him.

Rather, the idea that God creating something for destruction, which we translate backwards into "causing sentients to be born into and responsible for sin" needs no explanation. The notion of unfairness is a bogus consideration; we are asking the wrong question, presuming validity to our being more than God's purpose for us.

 

[ChristB4us]

Then why did he tell Martha that is who he is----not what he will do or what will happen to him later----but who he is. The resurrection and the life?

Martha made her awareness of the future resurrection as knowing it.

And why did he ask her if she believed that is who he is? And why did he ask her before she even knew he would be crucified.

Prelude for what was to occur after the resurrection of Lazarus.

Was she not one women beholding Jesus being crucified with Mary from afar off>

Martha didn't know he was going to raise her brother and Jesus did not tell her he was.

Right.

He asked her if she believed he was the resurrection and the life. He didn't say he was going to do anything.

Yet this was said in the event of Lazarus being dead.

He said "I am the resurrection and the life when she acknowledged that there would be a resurrection dead according to Jewish belief in the sect of the Pharisees. He said that is who he is. His person. Resurrection. Life.

In respect to Martha's knowledge of the future resurrection of the saints thus giving her foreknowledge for how that future resurrection will happen..

Two different things. Don't conflate. Correctly handle the word of God.

Well, your question was conflated in and of itself.

You have contradicted a previous statement here. It does not really matter what you think Martha was thinking. The question is not skewed and it is also not answered.

Free choice to accept or reject is the title and yet your question was can they accept to believe and then reject?

Than maybe you should clarify how you are applying that question to mean since it is not really aligning with the title?

I gave the example of the father wanting Jesus to cast out the devil out of his son and though he believes, yet he admitted to needing His help for his unbelief or doubts in what he wanted Jesus to do then and there.

And so your question in regards to Martha scenario is skewed because you know she is not expecting Jesus to raise Lazarus from the dead and yet Jesus commented on her knowledge about the future resurrection. So what do you mean by her believing and yet rejecting then since I am sure that resurrection she was talking about was yet to be future in her mind rather than at that moment since she was not expecting jess to raise Lazarus from the dead? What is she believing and yet rejecting at that moment?

I can understand that father wanting his son to be delivered from demons, in regards to your question, but then again maybe you are not asking that question as if rejections means doubts but something else in regards to Martha?

Okay then. What do you think Martha is believing and yet rejecting in that event you cited in scripture?

 

[fastfredy0]

The self-determinist's claims can accommodate this. They would claim that uncaused choosing is [by definition] not an effect. (How choosing can be uncaused is still beyond me to see, but...)

Well, that would be 'libertarian free will' which is uncaused. But, if an action is uncaused then God could not know the future completed. He'd have to be in heaven watching TV for the 'play by play'.
Uncaused actions are amoral.

We have no right, nor even ability, to judge God, nor to justify him.

Agreed ... yet I think we do judge God by our standards to an extent as we believe He works by the same 'right and wrong' standards as He has given to us. I think you eluded to that a couple times.

 

[makesends]

Well, that would be 'libertarian free will' which is uncaused. But, if an action is uncaused then God could not know the future completed. He'd have to be in heaven watching TV for the 'play by play'.
Uncaused actions are amoral.

Lol, no. Uncaused actions are non-existent, except God's own actions. But, Ok, I get what you are saying.

Agreed ... yet I think we do judge God by our standards to an extent as we believe He works by the same 'right and wrong' standards as He has given to us. I think you eluded to that a couple times.

Alluded. Ha! Don't accusing me of eluding it. (I did elude the police, twice, maybe three times, in my life, (the third time might have been just my paranoia after 3 tickets), but that's for another thread.)

 

[fastfredy0]

Alluded. Ha! Don't accusing me of eluding it.

Ooops ... used the wrong word. I meant allude. Spelling is not my strong suit.

(I did elude the police, twice, maybe three times, in my life, (the third time might have been just my paranoia after 3 tickets), but that's for another thread.)

Hmmm.... I sped by a cop whose car pointed in opposite direction than I was going on my on/off road motorcycle ... I kept going, turned down a road and rode off into the bush. Unfortunately the trail ended in 200 yards but luckily behind a hill. Dumb thing to do. Got lucky.
My father was a speed demon. Got caught once doing 92 in a 50 mph.

 

[prism]

We have no originals and older does not always mean better.

I realize we do not have the originals (if we did, the manuscript question of which mss. are better would be a mute one. My question still stands..."If it's not found in any manuscript (older or original), why would we want to treat it as God's Word"

 

[JIM]

If it's not found in any manuscript (older or original), why would we want to treat it as God's Word?

It is apparently found is some later manuscripts. And the older manuscript is not necessarily the better manuscript.

 

[JIM]

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?

It is possible to believe something and reject it at the same time. It is not possible to believe in something and to reject it at the same time since to believe in something is to accept it, to trust it, to respond to it, to act accordingly to it. To reject it, by definition, means not to believe in it.

 

[Arial]

fastfredy0 said:
Agreed. God also creates the reprobate to be passed by. All follow the script according to the desires God gave them.
Praise God.

Does God NOT create the reprobate "to be passed by"? That is, of course, far from the whole story, but that is definitely the position of the reprobate by definition. I think a little faith in God's goodness is due here. Not our defining God's goodness, but our counting on it, that nobody will receive worse than is their due. Our Hamartiology and Soteriology depends on what God is and does, and not on how well we build our Doctrine of God. We have no right, nor even ability, to judge God, nor to justify him.

Rather, the idea that God creating something for destruction, which we translate backwards into "causing sentients to be born into and responsible for sin" needs no explanation. The notion of unfairness is a bogus consideration; we are asking the wrong question, presuming validity to our being more than God's purpose for us.

It was really only the second sentence in that quote that I was addressing. The reprobate were not really a part of the discussion. The debate was over whether or not God gives us the specific desires that we have including our sinful desires.

 

[prism]

It is apparently found is some later manuscripts. And the older manuscript is not necessarily the better manuscript.

Please answer my original question,
prism said:
"If it's not found in any manuscript, why would we want to treat it as God's Word?"

 

[Arial]

It is possible to believe something and reject it at the same time. It is not possible to believe in something and to reject it at the same time since to believe in something is to accept it, to trust it, to respond to it, to act accordingly to it. To reject it, by definition, means not to believe in it.

You have that backwards.

Can a person understand and believe in the person and work of Jesus as given in the Scripture----what is necessary for eternal life ("believe and you will have eternal life") and also reject what you believe---unbelieve it?