Free will. What is it?

[makesends]

Does God constrain our behavior, such as when He does not allow some to believe? Yes. So we are not bound only by our sinful nature, but by all the constraints of the purview God provides. Soil #1 in Matthew 13 had lost the ability to understand the gospel, due to the practice of sin, but Soils 2, 3 and 4 were also sinful but had not lost the ability to understand the gospel.

Scripture says God's knowledge is beyond our ability to fully grasp or measure, but it does not say or suggest it is infinite. That claim arose from a poor translation. (Psalm 147:5 - compare the KJV to the ESV) Scripture says God knows all about the thing or things in context, but does not say God knows all about everything, since He remembers no more forever our forgiven sins.

Poor reasoning, I think. It's not just that "remembers [our sins] no more" is referring to not holding them against us, but that logically, it is impossible for God to be omnipotent and omniscient if there is something God doesn't know. It also denies that he is First Cause, since, by the claim that there is something he doesn't know, the necessary implication is that there are things besides him that are self-existent, and to which he must accommodate himself —thus denying what he says, that he does not change.

God does declare some things that will happen in the future, and then He fulfills those declarations by making what He declared happen by intervention.

No need for intervention, except where he intended all along to intervene. God doesn't fly by the seat of his pants.

 

[Foghorn]

One can make the argument that God does not hold accountable those who don’t hear the Gospel.

Romans 5:12-14 ESV Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

And that passage proves it, how?

 

[makesends]

God allowing something to happen does not mean God caused it.

Actually, it does. But yes, it does not mean that God is the only cause behind it happening; it only means that he is the first cause, not the immediate cause.

An example I can think of is in the OT. God prevented baryon from taking Jerusalem. until he did not. He did not cause per say Babylon to destroy Jerusalem. He allowed it.

Give me the reference. The one I read says he caused it. Also logical progression of causation says he caused it. But he did not sin in causing it. Babylon sinned.

He used Babylon with its power and will to do what Babylon wanted to do.

Agreed, and, in fact, used them to do it, for God's own reasons.

same with adam, He did not cause adam to sin, but by the very prospect of putting that tree in the garden, he allowed Adam to chose to sin.. He did not cause Adam to sin.

Again, can you show me any way for something to happen apart from God's causation? Look at all the facts —If God had not created, Adam would not have sinned: If God had not made Lucifer, If God had not made Lucifer so beautiful and mighty, If God had not thrown Satan out, If God had not created the world, If God had not made the garden, If God had not put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden, (If God had not pointed it out to Adam?), If God had not directed every single circumstance that resulted in A&E and the Serpent being there at that moment, If God had not made A with his desires, and E with her desires, and both with their ability to think, If God had not etc etc etc. It is monumental (to me) to think that God foresaw this, but did not cause it. This whole matter descended logically from, first, the fact that God knew it would happen but created anyway. The only logical solution I can come up with, if he is indeed omniscient, is that God intended it to happen.

Do you think that the cross was to fix a mistake? Or was it to bring his particular people to himself in a way infinitely better than what Adam and Eve had?

 

[Foghorn]

Specifically the part that reads "sin is not counted where there is no law"...

There is no law with someone who hasn't heard the gospel. Is that what you are trying to tell me?

 

[Carbon]

Sin is not accounted for someone who has no knowledge of the law in the first place.

I think you should consider Roman’s 2:12-16 before you say any more

 

[makesends]

Says who?

Says 1 Corinthians 2:14

God can;t make alive dead in sin

Is that a question? Or are you saying that those dead in sin God cannot make alive? What are you saying, there. Nobody is saying that God can make alive someone who remains dead after he makes them alive, so I don't expect that that is what you are saying.

Could be, But he still answered his question. How…

Yes, he did. How does that mean that Nicodemus was, or was not, regenerated at that time? What is your point in saying that? (Lol, if you are like me, you don't remember. I had to look to find out what you were talking about.)

 

[makesends]

I have to do it.

Sure you do. And you had a choice, according to you. Can you explain to me why you chose what you did? It will be hard to explain without it being reducible to "I wanted this more than that". or "I preferred to do this over that".

I still do not agree

Ok, then, explain why you chose to do it.

 

[makesends]

It fits.

Does god have to make me alive first.

Do you mean, do you have to be made alive first. Yes, you do. (God doesn't "have to" do anything —it has to be done, and God will do it. Sorry for being so picky, but the two ways of saying it don't mean the same thing).

Or can he convince me first?

According to 1 Corinthians 2:14, until you are no longer the "natural man" you cannot understand what he may (or may not) have convinced you of. The devil is convinced too, and despairs. Being convinced is not faith, nor does the convinced person have the capability of producing salvific faith.

You have said elsewhere that the faith is 'from God', in that God can convince you of his reliability, and so you have faith in him, just like you do in your wife (or in a chair, I say). That is not salvific faith. I can believe everything I do, and have it down and sensible, got the details, and am sure of them —convinced— but could be fooling myself. It is GOD's work that produces salvific faith (John6:29 -interesting discussion, that!). The evidence, the convincing, the drawing, the circumstances —all good— but they do not make you capable of producing salvific faith. It must be generated by God himself. In that way, it is 'God's'. It is 'yours' because it is done within you.

 

[makesends]

Agreed

Can not agree. This makes no sense. Again, How can God make me alive in sin>.

God has the ability to bring me to faith, he does not need to go against his own justice and make me alive while I am still in sin.

Why are people afraid of just saying we can call out to God..anyone can.. If we do we are saved, if we do not we are lost

I do not get it

Let me try again. I am not saying that he makes you alive in sin. I'm saying that while you WERE (past tense) still at enmity with him, he changed your will, so that you are no longer at enmity with him; he didn't ask you for permission, didn't consult you any more than you were consulted or asked permission to be born the first time. He changed your will. What had been set continually against him now becomes the old man within you. But YOU, the new man, are become a different thing from what you were.

I'm not afraid of saying anyone can call out to God. I would like to know what that means, for the one who Romans 8 says "cannot please God".

Turn this to John 3:16. We like to quote it so it sounds like just anybody can believe. But that isn't what it says. Over and over this is seen. The ones who will truly be calling out to God with faith are those who have been already born-again. The fact they don't feel it is irrelevant.

Look at Revelation 3:20, the old, "Behold I stand at the door and knock" verse. We love to say that God has not come in until we open the door. Not so. Look to whom that verse is addressed. Not the unsaved. That verse is about God's indescribable fellowship with Jesus and the Father. We look to him, we cry out for him, we need him, we desire him, and he comes to us. The Spirit of God is indwelling us. Here we see the Trinity also.

 

[Carbon]

Creed said:
Specifically the part that reads "sin is not counted where there is no law"...

@Creed
Question, when was there no law?

Surely you don't mean before God gave the Ten Commandments?

When God gave a specific command to Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That's law, is it not?

 

[makesends]

I do not think I ever studied these..

It is worth it, even for a non-Reformed.

 

[makesends]

If I may.....,

The word "contingency can have two meanings. The first meaning is that of a predicate or predicated condition; or a declared (decided) condition. To say "X is contingent upon Y" with that definition would mean Y is determined by Y. The second meaning is that of an event that is unexpected or uncertain. That would make the "contingency mean x could precipitate multiple outcomes, not one single already-determined outcome. As written, Article 3.1 states,

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; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

given the two definitions of "contingency," WCF 3.1 can be read to say.....

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; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or [determined conditions] of second causes taken away, but rather established.

or....

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; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or the [undetermined conditions] of second causes taken away, but rather established.

If I understand @makesends position correctly then he favors the first definition, whereas I favor the second (necessarily understanding God is omniscient and nothing is unexpected or uncertain from His vantage point in eternity or His status as sovereign almighty Creator). If the word is to mean "determined condition," then that conflicts with the liberty that is stated as an "or" in the clause. Simply put, there is no liberty if it the second causes are singularly determined or have a singular pre-determined consequence, and the Article explicitly states the second cause has liberty, liberty that is ordained by God from eternity. The "or" in that sentence indicates a similarity between liberty and contingency in regard to the second causes. This "liberty or contingency" already has a precedent established in the Article itself when it states God did not author sin. Sin was not "authored" by God; it was "authored" by something/someone else. If "author" is another word for "cause" then whatever authored sin would be a "second cause;" a cause other than God. The last clause is supported in the accompanying catechism by Mt. 17:12; Jn. 19:11; Acts 2:23 and 4:27-28; and Pr. 16:33. The lot cast's decision is from God. He did not throw the die, but He does decide how it lands... and He did so from eternity (not at the time the die was cast). What

Truncated the above because of having too many characters to post.


Last night I was too sleepy to think I could reason well enough for this. Today, all day, I kept thinking how all I needed to do was to get done with the easy ones, so I could set my mind to this, but I wouldn't be surprised if I had over a hundred alerts to look at!

Maybe I can at least start on this, while I sip my tea.

You give the first of the readings according to the two definitions of contingency, with [determined conditions], i.e.

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; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or [determined conditions] of second causes taken away, but rather established.

I would not call, 'contingency', "determined conditions", though in my take of 3.1 they certainly are determined conditions. As I see it, all things are determined. But that is not the point of the word, 'contingency', though it be determined. It, to me, is simply the logical order of causation. One thing is contingent on another, and God's ordaining does not do violence to that sequence —does not do violence to X coming to pass via causation by Y.

Now I will grant you that sounds/feels awkward, following the word 'liberty'. My view does not (yet) account for the question of liberty within the natural flow of causation. I don't know why they included it, unless your view is right, and contingency, there, only means the undetermined conditions of second causes. But, it would make me more likely to consider your view, if they had said, "liberty, or, contingency", of second causes, with the commas, because if no commas were there, all I see is tautology, which, while perhaps useful, does not lend itself to concision, which is what the authors of the WCF excelled at. (Yet, with the commas, the one word still seems redundant, unless the one is explanatory of the other, and are not separate considerations.)

WCF is not scripture, and is not to me authoritative, so I do interpret it through the filter of my assumptions, since I don't have a lot of references to other thoughts of the authors impinging upon 3.1. —that is, my assumptions concerning the way of causation, and of what little I know about the thinking of the authors, who I had assumed thought pretty much how I do. To me, it is simply logical that Omnipotent God be necessarily causal of absolutely everything that is not himself. And by that I do not mean directly causal, (though there may be hints of that nature of thing within the study of the Attribute of Immanence.) I thought that was straightforward Reformed thinking. It took you, Josh, to wake me up to the possibility that there are better Reformed theologians than myself that actually think it reasonable that Sovereign God not be causal of all details. I still don't get how they can come to that. It makes no sense to me. But, apparently there are some. Whether or not the authors of the WCF are some of them, I don't know. But I think I can understand why you think that is what they meant.

Also, I will grant that it would seem more sensible for them to say that it does not do violence to the undetermined nature of conditionality, thought that too sounds strange —violating a lack of determining? But I see no information gained in saying that God's ordaining does no violence to what is determined—it is still sure to come to pass. So, I don't know. In the end, I have to take "does not do violence to..." to mean that God does not (usually) interpose into the natural order of causation, which involves nothing undetermined, but rather that anything that comes to pass does so by his establishing it. And that word, 'establishes', necessarily implies causation. And how causation can happen apart from God determining it so, I don't know. But maybe the authors did.

What liberty there is in anything undetermined, I don't get, either, unless by 'second causes' are meant willed events. Regardless, though, it seems to me also possible that they are mollifying some protestors, to avoid conflict with them, by not being overly deterministic in their speech. That the liberty of second causes is not violated, but established, does make sense to me, though it is rather an ironic statement. I can only guess they mean that "second causes are established, thus the notion of violence against any supposed liberty or indeterminate conditions of those second causes is a bogus notion".

Now, on a different matter: You said that I see "history as a sequence of singular, linear causes and effects." I have heard the same from you before, though in different words, as I recall. I objected back then, and also now. I can only suppose that I don't know what you mean by that, because I do not see singular lines, but myriad lines, all crisscrossing one another, and so involved are they with each other that I could almost say that any one thing affects all other things (and some thinkers/ scientists have even said as much). I suppose you mean that I think that any one cause can be traced (by God, of course—not by man) back through lines of causation all the way back to First Cause, and that, I will grant. But this family tree is not just a pole. Jesus' genealogy can be traced back to Adam more than one way, and anything that comes to pass does so by myriad causes.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I'm beginning to think I need to just deal with the below, instead of dealing with the minutia.

The term, 'decree', stems from him speaking everything into existence. Whatever is, was made to be so by God, to include absolutely everything that is not God himself. Otherwise it could not have come into being. Alternative words are "ordain", "cause", even "create" and "make" though those two are more specific to certain uses.

we agree here
Nothing came into existence outside of his word. God spoke and it appeared.

That God decrees everything is one of the disagreements, but I think the disagreement comes from an assumption, a worldview.

I come from both Bible and logic. And I came to what I believe by way of problems I can't even begin to describe. I have spent many hard years in agonized prayer and private Bible study and trying to figure out why what I was brought up being told about God and walking with God just didn't make sense. Maybe 35 or so years ago now, I finally realized what was going on was that what Reason and Scripture both said about God showed that the concept of God I was brought up to believe in and to walk with, was not a valid concept of God; we have made him in our image. I finally came to what I now believe and only then began to realize it very closely resembled Reformed Theology.

Now, finally, everything makes sense, except for why God would love me so.
Let me list just a few things I figured/found out:

God did all this for HIS own Glory, and includes us in it for HIS own sake.
God had in mind the end from the beginning, and all the details it takes to get to the end.
Nothing happens by chance —causation by chance is self-contradictory, by definition.
If there's anything that God did not in some way, directly or indirectly, cause, then it happened by chance, which is self-contradictory.
There is no such thing as partly autonomous, partly spontaneous, partly uncaused.
If God is Omnipotent, he is First Cause. There can be only one first cause, and under that fact can be found all the attributes of God.
This life is about Christ
This life is not for this life
Christ brings us the Gospel, and it is about him, and it is for his sake. You've probably heard here already, that the gospel is the whole thing, the whole story, not just 7 or 8 concepts. Much simpler than we can understand. The Gospel is Christ.
The command doesn't imply the ability to obey.
—and many more things.
Particularly sweet to me is the reason for creation: For the praise of his glory, he will dwell among us, and be our God, and we will be his people. Heaven.

I love to watch him work.

I almost agree with everything.

However. Again, (and to try to keep us on topic) I believe God created us in his image, He created us to serve us (backward knowledge I know, The world and human knowledge said God created us to serve him, I firmly believe this is the lie that Lucifer spread and got 1/3 of all the heavenly angels to follow him in rebellion)

Creation is one of my favorite topics (along with History and Prophecy) When I was in high school I had so many questions about what I was being told. and could not biblically find an answers. My father gave me a Scofield NKJV bible for my birthday, and in reading the notes I saw his GAP theory. I was so excited I could finally answer questions.

Many years later in studying, I changed my view. and saw creation in a different light. God created everything for his creation (Adam) to serve him, to love him, and to nurture him.

God created us in his image, in fact he said we are to Love as he loved. and serve as he served.

In doing so. He gave us this thing called freedom to chose. or free will as some call it. Which may be limited as many say (And I would agree we do not have 100% freedom depending on how you interpret freedom) but we are given the ability to chose.. Knowing we would rebel. But loving us anyway.

so while I think he has many things he needs done to accomplish his will ( He chose Israel knowing they would rebel, and loved them anyway) there are some things he just allows happen. there are times, he just does not prevent people from doing what they want, for whatever reason.

Now when something happens. Like world war 2, we can not say God caused it to happen. or is the means of all those thousands dyeing, He just did not stop it. He allowed it. for whatever reason we do not know. But he is not the cause, he did not decree it (it was not part of the creation process) nor did he create it.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

But sin is more than just the deed.

this is the point I was trying to make.

when we look to law. we are looking for the deed. Did we do the deed. i sinned. Did I not do the deed. i have not sinned.

That's why Jews could think they are ok, because when it came to the letter of the law. there were no people more righteous than they were.

That is why Jesus said, unless our righteousness exceeds theirs (according the law) we have no hope. everyone knw at the time no one could see themselves as that good. so no one qualified (and not even they qualified)

I was thinking of this as a younger gentleman, Mother Theresa was always so high spoken as a very moral lady. It would be like our righteousness would have to exceed hers. who could say this?

It is the why, the rebellion against God, which is endemic to the nature of the lost. And in the saved, it is being brought up and driven out.

By the time we do the "deed" we have already sinned.. I believe the biggest one on any sin we commit is the sin of pride.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Lol, I don't remember what passages we're talking about. Do the passages say we must continue (as in exhorting or commanding) us to believe?

I'm still at it!

that was a long day..lol I do not think I can give as much time today..

as for the passage

1 John 5:1
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.

The term believes their is present tense active.. The point was that it is continue was the argument.

 

[Hazelelponi]

we agree here
Nothing came into existence outside of his word. God spoke and it appeared.

I almost agree with everything.

However. Again, (and to try to keep us on topic) I believe God created us in his image, He created us to serve us (backward knowledge I know, The world and human knowledge said God created us to serve him, I firmly believe this is the lie that Lucifer spread and got 1/3 of all the heavenly angels to follow him in rebellion)

Creation is one of my favorite topics (along with History and Prophecy) When I was in high school I had so many questions about what I was being told. and could not biblically find an answers. My father gave me a Scofield NKJV bible for my birthday, and in reading the notes I saw his GAP theory. I was so excited I could finally answer questions.

Many years later in studying, I changed my view. and saw creation in a different light. God created everything for his creation (Adam) to serve him, to love him, and to nurture him.

God created us in his image, in fact he said we are to Love as he loved. and serve as he served.

In doing so. He gave us this thing called freedom to chose. or free will as some call it. Which may be limited as many say (And I would agree we do not have 100% freedom depending on how you interpret freedom) but we are given the ability to chose.. Knowing we would rebel. But loving us anyway.

so while I think he has many things he needs done to accomplish his will ( He chose Israel knowing they would rebel, and loved them anyway) there are some things he just allows happen. there are times, he just does not prevent people from doing what they want, for whatever reason.

Now when something happens. Like world war 2, we can not say God caused it to happen. or is the means of all those thousands dyeing, He just did not stop it. He allowed it. for whatever reason we do not know. But he is not the cause, he did not decree it (it was not part of the creation process) nor did he create it.

Let's make sure I'm understanding you.

Your saying here that the sin of the fallen angels was worshipping God and teaching humanity to do the same?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

He can be held accountable because God has determined to judge sin (of which Hitler has no shortage). Moral responsibility does not presuppose human freedom, it presupposes divine sovereignty and justice. We are responsible not because we are free but because we are not free—we are accountable to a sovereign God who has determined to judge sin. Every sinful choice Hitler made was because it related to what he wanted, and for that he is responsible.

But if it was decreed. Hitler had no choice.

Question: Can God stop someone from committing a sin?

Can God overrule a persons free will?

I think Jonah is the best example.. I can see times in my life where I made a bad decision. and after I made that decision and started to suffer greatly by the decision and get chastened by God. I could see the way God tries to stop me..

According to 1 John 5:1, if someone stops believing, they were never born of God. In other words, they don't stop being born of God, but rather prove they were never born of God.

This makes no sense. So if they are believing, they are born of God! you can not say they were never born of God. because at one time they were actively believing.

1 John 2, said they were never of us, if the were they never would have left.

they were never believing (active faith) they may have said they believed, but even demons believe and tremble. there is a difference between mere belief and faith.

paul said we are saved by Grace through faith. not mental assent as some call it. or mere belief

I want to, but that was muddled English. Could you try rephrasing, please?

See above.

just like in John 3. If at any time, I believed, I was at that moment born again, I am given the promise that I will never perish and i have eternal life.

the Israelites who looked to the serpent Moses raised were reborn in an essence. their death penalty by poison wil lifted and they were saved.

they did not have to keep believing to be saved. They were saved, and did not die from the death which the snake poured into them.

I do not have to continue to believe to continue to be born again, to continue to have eternal life. I already have it, and as John said, he wrote a whole book so I may know I have it (eternal life). I have overcome the world through my faith.

You cited a biblical passage of nine verses. Which one says that they "will be born again"?

Or maybe you have a funky version.

Lets try to walk through it

9. Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”

1. Jesus had just told Nicodemus unless one is born again, they can not see th ekingdom.

2. Jesus then went on to tell nicodemus after he asked him a question. what this means

3. Nicodemus then asked him. How?

10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?

1. Jesus asked him how, as a teacher, he could not know these things, Nicodemus should have known, And now he is going to tell him


11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

1. He explains that the son of man came down from heaven.

2. the son of man came for a purpose.

3. What is that purpose?

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,

1. Nicodemus, a teacher would have immediately recognized this even which happened in the OT.

2. Children of Israel were led into an area where serpents were biting them

3. Those bitten had a death sentence, they needed rescued (saved0 and could not save themselves. nor could anyone else save them

4. God had Moses create a bronze serpent on a pole. and had him lift this up (a type of Christ)

5. Those who in faith looked. were rescued. their death sentence was removed

6. Those who did not. were dead already, and were not rescued and eventually went to the grave because they did nto trust God, and thus did not look

even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,

1. In the same way,

2. The son of man will be lifted up (fulfilling the type

15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

1. Whosoever "pas" all or whoever, or all who,

2. Look up, as those who were saved in moses day

3. Will be rescued. will be born again, Given God promise they will never perish (the thing that condemned them was removed, hence the curse is removed) and they will live forever )spiritually speaking)

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

1. Just like God loved Israel and gave them an opportunity to be saved from the serpents bite, He loved the word. so much, He sent his son (Jesus) to the world. So he could be lifted up and again, all who believe (pas) would again be born again, this life will be eternal (eternal life) and they are given the promise they will not die (spiritually)

17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

1. God was not sent to the world to judge it (this time) he was sent to give the world an opportunity (might) be saved

18 He who believes in Him is not condemned;

1. Again, Whoever trusts in God and looks, will be rescued from the curse that killed them, and they would not die (they are reborn, or born a second time spiritually)


but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God

1. But the one who is not believing, He remains with the curse, he remains condemned, He remains dead because of his sin. because like the children of Israel who did not look to the bronze serpent, they in unbelief, refused to look.

If you notice here. 3 times 9actually 4 if you look to Moses day) God said we must believe his promise, by looking to the cross (no one comes to the father but through me)

and 3 times, he said those who do will be rescued. they will not suffer the curse of condemnation (the wage of sin is death) they have been born again (spiritually) and they will never perish (they are no longer condemned) and they will live forever.

This is not only one of the greatest gospel passage in the word of God. it is also one of the most secure passages for those who been saved.. If we translate it right. our security is here

God keeps his promises.. When he say forever, he means it. If he says you will never die. he means it.

Again, those who say we can stop believing and lose this promise. take it because the word believe is present tense active.

The offer us no security. and put the onus of salvation on our ability. Not Gods promise

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Actually, it does. But yes, it does not mean that God is the only cause behind it happening; it only means that he is the first cause, not the immediate cause.

I can not agree.

to say God caused evil is to take away the true cause of evil.

Give me the reference. The one I read says he caused it. Also logical progression of causation says he caused it. But he did not sin in causing it. Babylon sinned.

But he did not cause it, he allowed it

To cause it would mean he overruled Nebuchadnezzar's will. and forced him to attack Babylon. this did not happen.

God used another mans free will to do punish his people, But he did not stop it. he removed his protecting hand and allowed it.

Agreed, and, in fact, used them to do it, for God's own reasons.

yes, But he did not cause it.

We can't blame God for all the murders and rapes and all the evil committed by Babylon, Babylon gets the blame. and also would get the punishment for their sin.

Again, can you show me any way for something to happen apart from God's causation? Look at all the facts —If God had not created, Adam would not have sinned:

Again, God did not force adam to sin.

when we say someone caused something, we say that the reason that that happened was because of that person.

The blame goes not only to the person who did it, but the person who caused it.

God gave Adam the ability to turn from him, But he did not cause it. If he did, God is just as Guilty as Adam was.

If God had not made Lucifer, If God had not made Lucifer so beautiful and mighty, If God had not thrown Satan out, If God had not created the world, If God had not made the garden, If God had not put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden, (If God had not pointed it out to Adam?), If God had not directed every single circumstance that resulted in A&E and the Serpent being there at that moment, If God had not made A with his desires, and E with her desires, and both with their ability to think, If God had not etc etc etc. It is monumental (to me) to think that God foresaw this, but did not cause it. This whole matter descended logically from, first, the fact that God knew it would happen but created anyway. The only logical solution I can come up with, if he is indeed omniscient, is that God intended it to happen.

I would look at it a different way.

If I cause someone's death. I am guilty of that persons death. whether it was on purpose, or on accident. I still must pay for that crime. (murder or manslaughter)

If God caused all these sins, and all this evil. he is as guilty as those who did it.

God allowed it. He gave his creation free will (the topic) He could have made them all robots. and Lucifer would have never sinned, Adam would have never sinned. The fall of mankind would never have happened. Hitler would have never be in the record books, because he would not have perpetrated such evil. he would have done everything God wanted. because he has no other option.

Instead he gave us a will. to chose to receive his love, or chose to not receive it.

Lucifer, who really had no excuse. because he saw God. Decided to go against Gods will And took 1/3 of the angels with him.

Adam, Who did not see God. but had everything created for him and had no need of anything. Chose to go with his Wife and eat of a fruit that he was told not to eat.

His sin was passed to all mankind (In Adam all Die)

God did that so life could be given to all mankind (the possibility)

in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Do you think that the cross was to fix a mistake? Or was it to bring his particular people to himself in a way infinitely better than what Adam and Eve had?

No. I think It was to show his love

He created mankind. They rebelled. He knew that even after Adam, he saw most if not all, if left on their own, would rebel in some fashion.

but he loved his creation. so he had the perfect plan.

1. Put all mankind under the preview of being in Adam (hence all died when Adam died)

2. He would come. Pay for everyone personal sins, so that all would have the ability to be saved or made alive (in Christ)

its the perfect plan. A plan no one would think of. and was part of the hidden mystery Paul spoke of.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Says 1 Corinthians 2:14

that says we can not understand the things of God

It does not say we can not understand the gospel.

it does not say God can not overcome our flesh, and help us to understand the truth of the gospel (many in theology call this God Consciousness) so we can make a choice to say yes God save me as the tax collector. Or say no thank you God. i am good enough. I can save myself. or I do not need saved because you do nto exist.
'

Is that a question? Or are you saying that those dead in sin God cannot make alive? What are you saying, there. Nobody is saying that God can make alive someone who remains dead after he makes them alive, so I don't expect that that is what you are saying.

No it is a statement of fact as I see it

If a person is under the curse of sin (death) God can not overrule his perfect justice and make a person alive, UNTIL that curse is removed.

that process is called justification. and we are justified by faith.

Yes, he did. How does that mean that Nicodemus was, or was not, regenerated at that time? What is your point in saying that? (Lol, if you are like me, you don't remember. I had to look to find out what you were talking about.)

He did not understand the gospel. the same Gospel Paul told timothy he knew from a child.

If he did not understand the gospel. he was not saved.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Sure you do. And you had a choice, according to you. Can you explain to me why you chose what you did? It will be hard to explain without it being reducible to "I wanted this more than that". or "I preferred to do this over that".

I had a family to take care of. I preferred to stay in bed. or at the least. Not have to go to work until much later in the morning.

Ok, then, explain why you chose to do it.

Again, I have a family to take care of. if it was just me, I may just stay in bed.. or found a different job and started over. in which I could sat in bed longer

again, I am not a morning person